Preamble

The House—resuming after the Adjournment on Tuesday, 19th August, for the Autumn Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

WATERWAYS (BENGAL AND ASSAM).

Mr. A. SHAW: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement regarding the future of waterways in Bengal and Assam; and what effect will be given to the wishes of the trading community for the constitution of a waterways board?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr Montagu): I have received a letter from the Government of India reviewing the subjects and making recommendations. These recomendations are now under consideration, and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will assist me in their consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible to postpone the consideration of this matter until after the Indian Bill has passed?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that that is necessary. This is not a controversial question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

YORKSHIRE MINERS' STRIKE (DOUBLE PAY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty who will find the extra pay and expenses of the naval officers and men employed in Yorkshire during July and August of this year in connection with the mining strike?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Instructions were issued in August last for these officers and men to receive extra pay at double the rates laid down in the Regulations whilst employed in the Yorkshire mines, in addition to their ordinary naval pay and allowances (including separation allowances where these are issuable). The colliery companies concerned are being asked to refund to the Crown a sum equivalent to the civilian wages for which they would have been liable had the pumping stations, etc., been manned by civilians instead of naval personnel.

WAR SERVICE REDUCTIONS.

Mr. PERRING: 3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech making substantial reductions of the war service next year; and whether his Department expects to realise that aspiration?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

OFFICERS AND MEN SERVING.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state what is the present number of men serving in the Navy and the number serving on 31st July last; and, in each case, how many are conscripts?

Mr. LONG: The total numbers serving on 31st July and on 30th September are as follows:—



31st July.
30th Sept.


Officers
20,296
17,591


Men
170,315
151,875


These figures are inclusive of officers and men of the Mercantile Marine Reserve, but do not include figures in respect of men who, on the dates mentioned, had been dispersed to demobilisation leave. The permanent Navy is a wholly voluntary service. The Military Service Acts provided that before being entered for military service any man taken could express his preference for the Navy. A great many did, and a number were accepted by us. Whether my hon. Friend has these men in mind when using the word "conscripts" or not I cannot say, but in any case there are very few of them still serving.

FUEL CONSUMPTION (COAL AND OIL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state the monthly consumption of coal and of oil fuel for the Royal Navy; and if he can state the total expenditure of coal and oil since 1st January, 1919?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As stated in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 23rd July, it is not considered desirable to publish the figures relating to the Navy expenditure of coal and oil. I may assure him, however, that fuel expenditure for Naval purposes since 1st January last has steadily decreased.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible to publish these figures before the next Naval Estimates?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. We are in this following the very excellent practice of the past. If it is desired to alter it representation should be made to the Board first, but I have no authority to alter it.

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the desirability of saving would the right hon. Gentleman see that the M.L. boats should cease running as ferry boats, having regard to the fact that the petrol consumed is something like a gallon per minute?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot imagine that the M.L. boats are being used now in that way. Most of them are tied up.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Southampton there is a sort of a ten minutes' service, in many cases boats carrying nothing but a couple of W.A.A.C.'s and one or two non-commissioned officers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will inquire immediately. I think that my hon. Friend is overestimating the amount of running.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).

Mr. PERRING: 4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the total staff of his Department on the 1st August, 1914, was 4,366, on the 11th November, 1918 it was 16,882, and on the 31st March, 1919 this staff had actually been reduced by 980; and whether he will state what steps he is taking to reduce the staff to a pre-war level?

Dr. MACNAMARA: With reference to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I should explain that the figures referred to did not include the staff of certain outport establishments of the Admiralty. According to a revised statement which has now been prepared, the total staff at the date of the Armistice was 20,457 and this number has been reduced to the extent of 1,876 by the 31st March, 1919.
A further reduction of 1,738 was effected in the period from 31st March to 30th September. So far as the Admiralty
Office is concerned, it is hoped to reduce the staff to a total of 7,650 or less by the 31st December next, and to a total of 5,400 or less by the 31st March, 1920.
The staff requirements of the Department are under constant review, and staff both at the Admiralty and at the out-ports is being reduced with all possible rapidity.

Mr. PERRING: Is it contemplated that in March next the Admiralty will require a staff in excess of the pre-war figures?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not the pre-war figures. What I have said is that we shall get the central office staff down to 5,400 or less by that date.

Mr. MITCHELL: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it was necessary for him to maintain so large a staff at the Ministry, especially in view of the fact that the numbers given for the 31st March, 1919, showed an increase of over 17,000 on the numbers given for the 11th November, 1918; whether the present figures showed a considerable decrease; if not, whether he could promise very substantial reductions in the numbers employed by his Department before the end of the year; and whether he could give some approximate figure of such reductions.

The Minister of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): The hon. Member may rest assured that the staff of the Ministry of Labour is not excessive, and has never been excessive, having regard to the mass of new work which has devolved upon it since the Armistice. The pressure of this new work, and in particular in connection with the out-of-work donation, reached its high-water mark in May. Since then the staff has been steadily and progressively reduced, the figures for the 10th October showing a decrease of 4,487 as compared with the 31st March, and of 5,404 as compared with the 30th May. I am hopeful that the decrease may continue, but this is a point on which I cannot commit myself to any promise or prophecy.

Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of his staff employed on the 11th November, 1918, for purely statistical work; and whether there had been any reduction in the staff since that date?

Sir R. HORNE: On the 11th November, 1918, the statistical staff of the Ministry
of Labour numbered 176. Later on, with the new work devolving on the Ministry and in particular the out-of-work donation scheme, it increased to 272. But by the 17th October, 1919, it had been reduced to 226, and further reductions are in prospect. I should add that these figures include the staff engaged on the collection and collation of industrial and economic data at home and abroad.

Captain KNIGHTS: 12.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that on 1st August, 1914, the total staff employed by his Department was 187, on the 11th November, 1918, it was 835, and on 31st March, 1919, it was 938; whether this increase had since been maintained; and whether steps were being taken to reduce the Foreign Office staff to something near the pre-war level?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The figures given by the hon. and gallant Member are correct, but unless accompanied by an explanation, they are likely to give a most erroneous impression. For instance, the original staff of the Foreign Office was increased during the war by the personnel required in connection with the following Departments, none of which had a pre-war existence:
Foreign Trade Department, War Trade Statistical Department, Contraband Department, Prisoners of War Department, Foreign Claims Office, and Passport Office.
Some of these Departments have since been partly or wholly demobilised. On the other hand, the staff of the Passport Office has been increased since 1914 from 3 to 256, and, in addition, the Foreign Propaganda Branch of the late Ministry of Information (representing a personnel of 74) has been transferred to the Foreign Office.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the actual state of the Foreign Office staff at this time, and, as an illustration of the manner in which the work of the Office has increased during the war, I should like to add that the number of papers dealt with in the first six months of 1914 was 29,579, and that, in the first six months of 1919 the number was 95,976, exclusive of the correspondence of the Passport Office and one or two other Departments which are not actually housed in the Foreign Office building.

Captain KNIGHTS: May I ask why it is necessary to have a passport to go to the Channel Islands?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a question for the Home Office.

The following is the table referred to:


—
Males.
Females.
Total.


Foreign Office
351
150
501


Passport Office
123
133
256


News and Political Intelligence Department
36
62
98



510
345
855

Mr. GILBERT: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that the staff of his Department was given as 14,222 on the 31st March, 1919; and whether he had been able to make any substantial reductions since that date?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The total of 14,222 included the civilian staff only of the War Office on 31st March, 1919. The total staff (military and civilian) of this Department on that date was 16,359, and net reductions to the extent of 4,861 were effected between 1st April and 1st October, or a total of 7,340 since November, 1918. I have given directions for putting into operation a scheme under which it is hoped that further reductions down to a total of about 8,000 will be effected by 1st January, 1920.
I must, however, point out to the House that the weekly intake of papers from the public in connection with demobilisation, and the general business of winding up of the War armies, was as recently as the end of September last 52 per cent. in excess of the maximum reached during the War itself. It is inevitable, therefore, that the delays in dealing with correspondence must be substantially increased, and the House and the public will, I am sure, make allowances accordingly.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an estimate of the staff that will be required by his Department as a peace standard; and when he hopes to be able to make such reductions as will bring the number to such a level?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In the next financial year the British Army will have been reduced to dimensions not dissimilar from those of our pre-war Army. Proportionate reductions will Joe made in the War Office staff after making allowances for new services, and new responsibilities with which the War Office is charged. In addition there will be a considerable number of persons employed on winding up war business, as, for instance, the issue of medals and clasps, records, casualties, war claims, etc.

Mr. ROSE: Can the right lion. Gentleman give us any indication of how many new Ministries will be required to house all those people who are being turned out of the War Office staff?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the staff is reduced the accommodation will, of courser be surrendered.

Sir ALFRED YEO: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether lie will give the numbers of the staff employed by his Department on the 30th September, 1919?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The total number of the staff employed by the Ministry of Transport on 30th September, 1919, exclusive of those on temporary duty during the railway strike, was 277. Of this number eighty-two have been transferred from other Departments whose duties have been taken over by the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of Members. of this House who blacklegged during the railway strike?

Sir W. SEAGER: 39.
asked the Misister of Transport whether he can give an estimate as to the numbers of the normal staff which will be required to run his Department?

Sir E. GEDDES: At this early stage it is impossible to form a precise estimate of the ultimate requirements of the Ministry of Transport. As my hon. Friend will see from the reply to Question 29, the number on 30th September was 277, including 82 transferred from other Departments.

Mr. GILBERT: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he will state what reduction in staff has taken place in his Department, including those employed at depots, since
the 11th November, 1918; and whether he is taking any steps to make further reductions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "including those employed at depots," but I assume that this is to be interpreted as including all persons employed. Since 11th November, 1918, the numbers employed by the Air Ministry at headquarters and depots have been reduced from 68,150 to 24,700 on 30th September, 1919. These are approximate figures since all returns are not made up to the same date. Further reductions have been made since 30th September, and the process is continuing as rapidly as possible.

Mr. MITCHELL: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether substantial reductions have been made in the staff of his Department since the 31st March, 1919; and whether he can give any estimate f the figure which he proposes to keep in mind as representing the normal Peace staff for this Department?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The Headquarters Staff of the Ministry on the 31st March last was 15,920; to-day the Staff numbers 10,236, a reduction of 5,684. The total reduction since the Armistice is now 14,908, or 60 per cent., in spite of the fact that of the staff of 10,236, 3,000 are employed on functions transferred to the Ministry since the date of the Armistice. It is not at present possible to give the estimate asked for in the last part of the question.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask if any of those people are being taken over to staff new Departments?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Some of them are engaged on new work, such as that of disposing of surplus Government property.

Colonel STEPHENSON: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that his total staff employed on the 11th November, 1918, was 65,142, and that the figures given for the 31st March, 1919, were 35,922, a reduction of only 40 per cent.; and whether he has been able to make considerable reductions since the last date given?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member are correct, but it should be pointed out that these figures include not only the staffs at Headquarters but also the administrative and clerical staffs at Woolwich Arsenal, the Royal Ordnance Factories at Enfield and Waltham Abbey, the explosives factories, and over 200 stores and depots. The present total of the Headquarters and provincial staffs is 20,242—a reduction of 44,900, or 68 per cent., since 11th November. As I have pointed out in answer to a previous question, 3,000 of the Headquarters staff are engaged on new functions transferred to the Ministry since the date of the Armistice.

Mr. INSKIP: Can he say whether it is proposed at an early date to terminate the Ministry of Munitions?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As soon as the work on which it is engaged is terminated obviously there will be no need to continue the Ministry, but at present that Ministry is engaged in raising very large revenues for the Government.

Major GREAME: Can any approximate date be given, for its demise?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It is impossible at present to say how long it will take to dispose of the whole of the surplus Government property. At present the revenue is over two millions a week from that source alone.

Mr. ROSE: Can he issue some statement as to the salaries of the dismissed staff and the salaries of those who remain in Government employment?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If my hon. Friend will put a question down I will see if an answer can be given him.

Sir C. KINLOCH COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman correct in describing it as revenue, and should it not be called a return of capital?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It was a war expenditure which we are now able to dispose of, and for which we are receiving a revenue of £2,000,000 a week.

HON. MEMBERS: It is not revenue.

Mr. KELLAWAY: If the House does not agree with the term I have used I will say income which we are now able to obtain and which goes into the Exchequer.

Major GREAME: Am I right in saying that, on the hon. Gentleman's calculation of the value of the assets of which he is disposing, at that rate it will take ten years for this Ministry to finish its work?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have never made any estimate which would justify that conclusion.

Sir A. YEO: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the staff of the Public Trustee in 1st August, 1914, was 433, whereas the figures given in 1919 were 1,077; whether this increase represents additional staff dealing with enemy trading; and whether it is possible to reduce the staff now to pre-war level.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The ordinary work of the Public Trustee has more than doubled during the last five years, and is still increasing rapidly. This accounts for the greater part of the increase of staff. The staff engaged on work under the Trading With the Enemy Acts now numbers 211, and is fully occupied. In view of the additional duties which the terms of the Peace Treaty are likely to impose upon the Public Trustee as custodian no provision can be made for the immediate reduction of this staff.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: Is the Department self-supporting?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure it is, but I speak from memory.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH FORCES.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any British ships are still taking an active part in the Russian expedition?

Mr. LONG: If my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers to Murmansk and Archangel, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. THOMAS: Does that mean that so far as the British Navy are concerned they are taking no part whatever in expeditions in Russia?

Mr. LONG: It does not mean that.

Mr. J. JONES: Keep on making war Without declaring it.

Mr. LONG: I endeavoured in my answer to make my meaning plain. I said that if the question referred to the expeditions to Murmansk and to Archangel—

Mr. HOGGE: It does not.

Mr. LONG: Is it intended to refer to the Baltic?

Mr. HOGGE: Yes.

Mr. LONG: Then, of course, there is a considerable force there.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some further information as to the engagement reported in this afternoon's papers, and what purpose these ships are supposed to serve?

Mr. LONG: I am sorry to say that I have no more information than that which is supplied to the Press.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are British battleships murdering Russians at the present time?

Mr. JONES: Has this House ever been consulted in carrying on these operations? Can you make war without consulting the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

Mr. JONES: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman can war be carried on without the House being acquainted with the fact?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to put the question on the Paper. [Laughter.]

Mr. JONES: Those laugh best who laugh last.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of British troops retained in any Russian theatre of war?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The 9th Battalion Hampshire Regiment is due to sail for home from Vladivostok on the 30th of this month. Otherwise there are no formed bodies of British troops in any Russian theatre of war.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many are there?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall give a detailed answer if a question is put down.
There are a certain number of individuals serving, but no formed battalions except this unit which leaves in eight days from now.

EXPEDITIONS (COST).

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War what amount has been spent since the issue of the White Paper on the Russian expeditions?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be quite ready to make a statement on this subject at an early date.

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received by His Majesty's Government or by the Allied Powers from any of the Baltic States as to their opening negotiations for peace with the Soviet Government of Russia; and whether any steps have been taken by The Allied Powers to delay or prevent such negotiations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Baltic States communicated to His Majesty's representatives their desire to consider the question of opening negotiations for peace with the Russian Soviet Government. No steps have been taken by the Allied Powers to delay or prevent such negotiations, which in the last resort are a matter for the decision of these States themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT PAY.

Mr. CLOUGH: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the numbers in receipt of unemployment pay on 18th October; how many have received it since the Armistice; what is the amount which has been paid in this form of donation; and what is his policy in respect to unemployment pay for the future?

Sir R. HORNE: The figures for the 18th October are not yet available. For the week ended the 26th September, i.e., immediately before the railway strike, the number of persons receiving out-of-work donation was 364,190, of whom 274,477 were ex-Service men. The number of individuals who have received out-of-work donation since the Armistice is not available. The total amount paid in out-of-work donation to the 26th September, 1919,
was £36,978,027. The Out-of-work Donation Scheme expires on 24th November next for civilian workers, ex-members of His Majesty's Forces retain their right to donation during the year following their personal demobilisation. The policy in respect to the future is not yet decided.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Have the Government yet decided as to any extension of this principle after the 24th of November, and will the House be consulted on the matter

Sir R. HORNE: In the last part of my answer it was stated that the policy of the Government had not yet been decided.

Mr. TERRELL: Will the House be consulted?

Sir R. HORNE: I have already stated that some time ago.

Mr. TERRELL: That the House will be consulted?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of substituting a system for providing work rather than one for providing unemployment benefits?

Sir R. HORNE: All the possibilities are being considered.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he would give figures showing the present number of the unemployed and the weekly amount of the unemployment subsidy with the corresponding figures for 31st July last?

Sir R. HORNE: In the week ended the 26th September (the latest date for which figures are available) the number of persons claiming out-of-work donation, in-including those whose claims were not yet ripe for payment, was 403,003, while 26,319 were receiving unemployment insurance benefit—a total of 429,322. The corresponding figures for the week ended the 1st August were 553,482 and 30,936—a total of 584,418. The amount paid in donation during the week ended the 26th September was £494,000, as against £657,000 in the week ended 1st August.

Lieut.-Colonel W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of people receiving unemployment benefit for which they have paid?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend, I presume, refers to those who are under the Insurance Act scheme. The figures I have given, I think, cover what he refers to. There were 26,319 receiving unemployment insurance benefit.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: How long are these doles to be continued?

Sir R. HORNE: I dealt with a similar question only a minute ago.

Mr. J. JONES: Will that also be extended to landlords?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. BRIANT: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress had been made with the organisation of the League of Nations; and when it was expected that the first meeting of the Assembly would take place?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the Acting Secretary-General has established such a provisional organisation as is necessary for the immediate duties imposed on the international Secretariat by the Treaty of Peace. Any appointments he may have made will, under Article 6 of the Covenant, be subject to the approval of the Council. The date of the meeting of the Assembly is not yet fixed. It will, in accordance with Article 5 of the Covenant, be summoned by the President of the United States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the names of the British representatives be submitted to and approved by this House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that?

Mr. BILLING: When and where does the Council propose to sit?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Its first meeting, it was intended, was to be held at Washington. That is under consideration now. Its permanent habitation will be Geneva.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (TARIFF).

Major ENTWISTLE: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the revision of the Persian tariff had been completed; and whether it included preferential arrangements with the British Empire?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF PEACE.

SIGNATURE OF CHINA.

Major ENTWISTLE: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China had signed the Peace Treaty; and, if not, for what reason?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, a Mandate issued by the President of the Chinese Republic on 15th September states that China's reason for refraining from signing the Treaty of 28th June was her dissatisfaction with the clauses relating to Shantung.

AUSTRIA, TURKEY AND BULGARIA.

Mr. BRIANT: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress had been made with the Treaties of Peace with Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria, respectively?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Treaty of Peace with Austria was signed at Saint-Germain en Laye on 10th September. The Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria was handed to the Bulgarian Plenipotentiaries at Paris on 19th September. The Bulgarian Delegation was informed that they should formulate their observations on the Treaty within twenty-five days. This period has since been extended by a further ten days. As regards the Turkish Treaty, its further consideration has been delayed in order to enable the United States Government to state their intentions.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Can the hon. Gentleman give us no date as to when the presentation of the Turkish Treaty is likely to take place?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The latter part of my answer conveys the intimation that that must be uncertain.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was aware of the
unrest and discontent in Jamaica and the demand of the population for an extension of representative government; and what steps it was proposed to take to meet this demand of the people of Jamaica?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I am not aware that any exceptional amount of unrest or discontent exists in Jamaica. I have received copies of laws passed in the Colony to extend the franchise to men who have served overseas, and to women, but I have not had any official information regarding a demand for further extension of representative government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR TERRITORIALS (MEDAL).

Lieut.-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALL: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was yet in a position to announce the decision of the Army Council with regard to the issue of a medal to pre-war Territorials who volunteered for active service in 1914?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I am unable to make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY ESTIMATES (REDUCTION).

Mr. MITCHELL: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention had been drawn to the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech of making substantial reductions of the war service next year; and whether his Department was taking steps to realise that aspiration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; and I hope to give the House shortly some fairly detailed indications of the scale and cost of the Army in the financial year 1920–21. I may say at once, however, that, owing to the complete demobilisation of the great War Armies and the payment of war charges attendant thereupon during the course of the present year, the total expense next year will certainly be less than one-fifth of the present gross cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — 7TH NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 7th North Staffords after long service in the East were embarked for home from
India., but were disembarked in Russia and asked to volunteer to fight Russians; whether he is aware that they generally refused, with the result that they were all transferred to the Royal Berkshires and called a volunteer battalion in the Black Sea Army; and whether, in view of the pledges he has given, he will explain why this course of action was followed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This unit embarked for the Dardanelles in June, 1915. It served in the East until 11th June, 1919, when it was disbanded. It was never in India. It was never in Russia. Some of the men who were liable to be retained were transferred to the 7th Battalion Royal Berkshire Regiment, in the Army of the Black Sea. This battalion is now, I understand, being disbanded in the process of demobilisation. No part of the Army of the Black Sea is engaged in fighting Russians or is within hundreds of miles of the anti-Bolshevik front. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to be wrong in every single particular.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my right lion. Friend the only authority to say what the bounds of Russia are; and may I ask whether the territory of the Kuban Cossacks is not in Russian territory 7ir is not also excluded from the ambit of Russia., and, further, whether the garrison in the country of the Kuban Cossacks is not likely to bring these men into contact with Denikin's forces?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no likelihood. There are no British troops in the territory of the Kuban Cossacks.

Oral Answers to Questions — TROOPS IN IRELAND.

Dr. MURRAY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can state what is the number of troops at present employed in Ireland; and what is their weekly cost?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of troops at present employed in Ireland is 55,000, and their weekly cost is £210,000.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is not Ireland a cheap country in which to keep troops, and have we not got to keep them somewhere?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

Mr. HOLMES: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the present number of conscripts retained with the Colours?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of men serving in the Army on a non-volunteer basis, on the 15th October, was 615,000. Of these, 96,000 had been demobilised, and were on demobilisation furlough.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY STRENGTH.

Mr. HOLMES: 27.
asked what is the present number of men under arms and the number under arms on the 31st July last?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of troops on the strength of the Army on the 3Ist July last was 1,216,000 and on the 15th October 907,000. The first figure includes 83,000, the latter figure 150,000 men already demobilised but on demobilisation furlough. The actual strength under arms on the 15th October is, therefore, 757,000. But for the fortnight's delay of the strike it would have been reduced by an additional 140,000 men.

Sir F. HALL: Are all these officers and men disembarked from Russia given a month's leave or are they demobilised there and then?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRIOULTURAL POLICY.

Captain REGINALD TERRELL: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is now able to make any statement on the future agricultural policy of the Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday, which is reported in this morning's Press.

Captain TERRELL: In view of the un-that the Prime Minister yesterday stated he was unable to give us the full agricultural policy owing to the delay in the Report of the Royal Commission, may I ask when this Report is to be expected?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot say for certain, but I hope very soon.

Mr. BILLING: Is it in order to refer hon. Members to newspapers?

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask this question of my hon. Friend, Whether he does not think that this House is the place for any statement of policy to be made, and will he take an early opportunity, either by himself or some other duly authorised exponent of ministerial policy, to restate in this House what my hon. Friend has referred to as reports in the Press?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I shall be only too glad to make a statement in this House at the first convenient opportunity.

Mr. TURTON: As the Prime Minister was so delightfully vague on the question of the hours of agricultural labourers may I ask when will he state what the decision of the Government is to be on that question?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I really would recommend my hon. Friend to wait and see.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

FREIGHT RATES.

Mr. GILBERT: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is still continuing the C and D rates for goods traffic; and whether he proposes to make any modifications?

Sir CYRIL COBB: 32.
asked whether he has made any arrangements for putting goods traffic rates upon an economic basis?

Mr. HOGGE: 34.
asked whether he has increased or intends to increase the rates for the transport of goods on the railways?

Mr. CARR: 37.
asked whether he has revised the rates for carriage on goods; and, if so, to what extent he has done this?

Sir E. GEDDES: No general revision of goods rates has been or can be made until the Rates Advisory Committee, to be set up under -Section 21 of the Ministry of Transport Act, is appointed. I hope that the last of these appointments will be made in the next few days, and the Committee will be asked, as their first task, to advise upon a scheme for an immediate increase of freight rates.

RUNNING COST.

Mr. SUGDEN: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has taken out the figures for running the railway system of this country for the 1st January to the 30th September, 1919?

Colonel STEPHENSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state if the railway system of this country is now running at a profit?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am arranging to Iay a White Paper on the Table very shortly showing the results of railway working up to the end of August, which is the latest month for which figures are available.

Captain KNIGHTS: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give an estimate of the saving that his Department will effect by having eliminated competition between various railway lines?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is not possible at the present stage to make any estimate of the economies which might be effected by these means.

GOODS TRAFFIC (CONGESTION).

Mr. NEWBOULD: 38.
asked the Minister of Transport. whether he can make a statement as to congestion of goods traffic en the railways and the measures he has taken for dealing with it?

Sir E. GEDDES: As the hon. Member is aware, many causes have contributed to the existing congestion on the railways, and it is not possible to make a comprehensive statement. I am, however, having a short summary of the principal causes printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the summary referred to:
Delay in transit of goods by railways at the present time is due to an accumulation of adverse factors which are difficult to explain and deal with adequately in a brief statement, but the principal causes may be stated as congestion at terminals and ports; shortage of empty wagons; diversion to railways of traffic which before the war was carried by coastwise vessels; and behind all these the subsidised railway rates, and the adjustment of conditions necessitated by the introduction of the eight hours day. In addition there is at this moment the dislocation caused by the railway strike.
The congestion at terminals and ports is due partly to lack of cartage facilities for clearing the traffic, and to meet this difficulty over 1.000 Government-owned motor lorries are being placed at the disposal of railway companies for the purpose of carting traffic to and from railway terminals. In addition, Government-owned lorries are being utilised under the
scheme recently announced for relieving congestion at certain ports at which local committees have been formed to direct the use of the lorries.
Automatically the capacity of railways and ports was reduced by the introduction of the eight-hours day and the measures necessary to adjust the conditions and retrieve this lost capacity include the employment of additional labour and additional appliances, steps which are dependent upon the men and appliances being available
As regards the shortage of empty wagons: the 30,000 wagons which were sent to France are being returned to. this country as rapidly as possible and already about 10,000 have been returned. It is hoped that the average rate of return will be increased very shortly to about 900 per week. In addition, arrangements have been made to hand over to the railway companies about 8,000 wagons which were constructed for the War Office as soon as they can be got back from France.
During the War the maintenance of wagons, was necessarily allowed to fall into arrears, and every effort is being made to expedite repairs.
It is, however, not so much a shortage of wagons as a shortage of empty wagons, and the situation would be eased if traders would avoid keeping wagons under load for extended periods. Traders are urged to assist by releasing wagons at the earliest possible moment.
The continuance of pre-war railway rates for goods traffic has had the effect of diverting to rail traffic which was previously conveyed by coastwise vessels. Pending the consideration by -the Rates Advisory Committee appointed under the Ministry of Transport Act of the question of raising railway freight rates, a scheme is in force under which traffic imported foreign and traffic intended for export foreign can be conveyed by coastwise vessels at rates equivalent to the charges by railway between the same places, the difference being paid out of public funds. By this temporary expedient railways are being relieved to a certain extent of the traffic which is normally carried by coastwise services.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. ROWLANDS: 35.
asked whether the Report of the Select Committee dealing with London traffic has been considered
by him; and how many of the recommendations have been passed by the Government?

Mr. ROBERT MASON: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Select Committee on London Traffic suggested that a central traffic board should be appointed in London for dealing with this question; and whether he is prepared to adopt this recommendation?

Sir A. YEO: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the recommendations of the London Traffic Committee; and whether he is prepared to adopt any of these?

Mr. LORT WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has had an opportunity of considering the Report of the special Committee which dealt with the London traffic problem?

Mr. PURCHASE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the proposal of the London Traffic Committee that there should be a traffic board for London has his approval; and whether he intends to adopt it?

Sir E GEDDES: The Report of the Select Committee on London traffic has been considered by the Cabinet, and it has been decided that all questions of traffic in the London area will be dealt with by the Ministry of Transport. An Advisory Committee broadly on the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee will be appointed to advise and assist the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Mr. CLOUGH: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he will inform the House what was the strength of the personnel of the Air Force on 18th October; what it was on 12th August, 1919; and what it was on the date of the Armistice?

Major-General SEELY: The particulars asked for by my hon. Friend as to the strength of the Royal Air Force on the dates mentioned by him are as follow:



Officers.
Other ranks.


Date of Armistice
30,122
263,410


12th August, 1919
9,044
59,671


18th October, 1919
6,005
51,976

An HON. MEMBER: Can he say whether all the anti-aircraft stations have now been abolished in this country?

Major-General SEELY: I could not say that without notice. It does not come under my Department, but under the Home Forces. It ought to be put down to the Secretary of State for War.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: How many women are included in that last total?

Major-General SEELY: I could not say that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL IN DERBYSHIRE.

ROYALTIES (GOVERNMENT DECISION.)

Mr. HOLMES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to a decision concerning the payment of royalties on the oil discovered in Derbyshire?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Before this question is answered, will the Lord Privy Seal inform the House when the Prime Minister will be able to be present at Question time?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Yes, Sir. The Government have come to the decision that no royalty should be payable in the case of oil.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I respectfully ask, Mr. Speaker, whether I am not in order in asking my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal when the Prime Minister will be able to be present to answer questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not seem to be connected with the question of royalties on oil.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD SUBSIDY.

Lieut.-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the proposal contained in paragraph 35 (b) of the Report issued by the Select Committee on National Expenditure dealing with the Wheat Commission which indicated the possibility of a saving of £14,500,000 yearly by the restriction of the bread subsidy to flour actually used for bread?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. The whole question of the continuance of the bread subsidy is at present under the consideration of the Cabinet. An announcement on the subject will be made as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Captain TERRELL: 48 and 92.
asked (1) the Prime 'Minister if lie can make any statement as to the steps which have been taken since the House adjourned to reduce public expenditure, and in what direction economies have been mainly effected;
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he can state by what amount his estimates for financial expenditure in the first half of the financial year 1919–20 have been exceeded; and whether any large economies have been effected in any direction which were not contemplated when he introduced his last Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As it is not possible to deal adequately with the matters raised in these questions within the limits of an answer, and as the House will no doubt desire to discuss the financial situation as a whole, I propose to lay two Papers, the first showing the revised estimates of revenue and expenditure for the current year, and the second a. revised estimate for a normal year on the lines of that which I attempted in my Budget Statement.

Captain TERRELL: Arising out of the answer, and in view of the heavy financial commitments for housing, out-of-work donations, and pensions, is it not possible at once to give the House some definite figures of reductions in war expenditure?

Mr. LAMBERT: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say when be anticipates that such a discussion—obviously it is desired by the House—will take place?

Mr. BILLING: Will he now state a definite date when this matter might be discussed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that private notice has been given to the Prime Minister of a similar question to that put by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lambert), and the Prime Minister will answer it at the close of questions.

Mr. J. JONES: Is he prepared to say that a public inquiry will be held into the whole question of national expenditure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is for the House of Commons to decide. The House will first see the Papers I propose to lay and will discuss then what action we should take.

Captain TERRELL: Can we not have a definite date when this will be discussed in the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already. said the Prime Minister has received notice of a question to that effect for to-day, which he will answer at the close of questions to-day. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to wait for that.

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. Is it not the recognised custom of this House that questions which have been printed on the Paper should be replied to in preference to those by Private Notice?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question was replied to and then supplementary questions were asked. It was in reply to. Supplementary questions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that further replies would be given by the Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hogge.

Captain TERRELL: In view of the unsatisfactory nature—

HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already called upon the hon. Member who has the next question on the Paper.

Captain TERRELL: On a point of Order, and in view of the unsatisfactory answers I have received—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Captain TERRELL: May I move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hogge.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Mr. HOGGE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister when he intends to proceed with the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is the intention of the Government to pass this Bill through all its stages during the present Session.

Mr. THOMAS: Does this Bill deal with salaries on the basis of standardisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL.

Mr. HOGGE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Ministries and Secretaries Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. HOGGE: How soon will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell us?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have not discussed it since the Adjournment, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question in a week or ten days I will give him a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. CARR: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the staff employed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) on 11th November, 1918, was 1,091, and that the figures given for 31st March, 1919, show an increase of 76; and whether he can promise that this increase has not since been maintained, but that a substantial reduction has now been made?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes, Sir. During the period since 11th November last the Central Control Board has placed under management some forty licensed premises situated within the Carlisle and District Direct Control area. The number of employés is necessarily dependent on the number of houses under management, but no extension of the present area is contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE (REVISED ESTIMATES).

Mr. ARNOLD: 53.
asked the Prime Minister when the revised and detailed Estimate for the Army, Navy, and Air
Force Will be introduced; and what opportunities will be granted for their discussion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the Naval and Air Force Estimates will be presented early next month. I am informed by the War Office that the Army Estimates cannot be ready before the end of next month, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will lay a Paper explanatory of Army expenditure at the same time as the Treasury Papers on the financial position which I propose to lay. I hope that all those Papers will be available to Members on Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Captain W. BENN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the present position in Egypt?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Field-Marshal Lord Allenby, who has been appointed High Commissioner, has not yet returned to Egypt, and until he has arrived and reported upon the general situation it would be undesirable to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION.

Captain BENN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce a Bill setting up the new Liquor Control Commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is intended to introduce a Bill during the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-KAISER (TRIAL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether any arrangements have yet been made for the trial of the Kaiser?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is provided by Article 227 of the Conditions of Peace that the Allied and Associated Powers will address a request to the Government of the Netherlands for the surrender to them of the ex-Emperor in order that he may be put on trial. This request, however, cannot be made until the Treaty of Peace has been formally ratified. Meanwhile, all necessary preparations for trial are being made.

Mr. BILLING: Is there any provision as to what action shall be taken in the event of the Netherlands Government refusing?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be time enough to consider that if the event arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH POLICY.

Mr. G. THORNE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement on Irish policy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not possible at present to give a definite date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERMINATION OF WAR (ORDER IN COUNCIL).

Captain BENN: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will postpone making an Order or Orders in Council terminating the War until treaties of peace with Austria, Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria have been ratified; and, if so, whether he will indicate when he expects these treaties to be ratified?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I stated in answer to a similar question by my hon. and gallant. Friend on 18th August last, that this matter was governed by Statute, and the Government see no reason for proposing any alteration to it. As regards the last part of the question, it is not possible to make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

Mr. SUDGEN: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any estimate of the cost incurred by his Department under the Profiteering Act up to the end of September, 1919?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The cost incurred to the end of September by the Department established to administer the Profiteering Act is approximately £600. This amount does not include the cost of housing and lighting, or of stationery and printing.

Mr. J. JONES: Does that include the cost of the local authorities?

Sir A. GEDDES: Oh, no! That was provided for quite separately in the Act.

Mr. BRIANT: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints have been received under the Profiteering Act; how many prosecutions have taken place; and how many convictions have been secured?

Colonel STEPHENSON: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been held by his Department under the Profiteering Act?

Sir W. SEAGER: 70.
asked the number of prosecutions which have been held by the various local committees under the Profiteering Act?

Sir A. GEDDES: The powers of the Board of Trade in relation to complaints arising out of sales by wholesale, merchants of commodities to which the Profiteering Act will be, or has been, applied, have been delegated to a Central Committee appointed for the purpose, and the powers of the Board in relation to complaints arising out of retail sales have been delegated to local committees appointed by the local authorities. Up to the present no prosecutions have been instituted by the Board of Trade or the Central Committee. A number of complaints have been heard and determined by the local committees, who have been asked to render monthly reports to the Board. It is, however, not yet possible to supply particulars of the exact number of cases with the decisions thereon, nor to supply particulars of cases in which proceedings have been taken by the local committees in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL OUTPUT.

Mr. NEWBOULD: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the present weekly output of coal as compared with the output before the increase of 6s. per ton was announced?

Sir A. GEDDES: The increase of 6s. per ton in the price of coal was announced on the 9th July, 1919. The total output of coal from the 1st January, 1919, to that Elate was 128,169,000 tons, representing a rate of output of 4,577,000 tons per week, or 238,004,000 tons per year. The total output from the 9th July to 11th October (the latest date for which figures are available) was 45,579,000 tons, representing a rate of 3,820,000 tons per week, or
198,640,000 tons per year. During the later period a number of factors have affected the output of the mines, such as strikes, stoppages, and holidays, apart from the institution of the shorter working day. The figure which was taken as the estimated rate of output after 16th July, 1919, and on which the 6s. increase was based, was 217,000,000 tons per year.

Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask whether the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted point to the necessity of a further advance in the price of coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: If we were to regard the period which has passed as normal, a further increase in the price of coal would be necessary. The actual output on what we may regard as fairly normal weeks is, however, improving, due to a variety of causes, such as improved transport, improved clearances from the mines, increased numbers of men at work in the mines, and, I hope and believe, in increased effort on the part of the men in the mines. It is improving, and so we hope still it will not be necessary further to increase the price of coal.

Mr. J. GUEST: Are there collieries in the North standing still owing to lack of transport?

Sir A. GEDDES: There are collieries which throughout the whole period have had difficulty in getting clearances; that is one of the causes of the reduced output—as I stated in the House at the time the increase was put on the price of coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTWISE SHIPPING TRADE (SUBSIDIES).

Mr. PURCHASE: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any subsidy to shippers has been given by the State for the purpose of reviving coastwise shipping trade; and how long it is proposed to continue this subsidy?

Sir A. GEDDES: The War Cabinet in August announced that, in order to relieve traffic and as a temporary arrangement, in certain cases arrangements had been made that goods should be carried by coastwise traffic. This involved an indirect subsidy to the coasting trade, and it was not proposed to continue it after the revision of railway rates had been made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has an estimate been made of the cost of the subsidy?

Sir A. GEDDES: I should require notice of that question. An estimate has been made, but I do not carry the figures in my head.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Mr. CHADWICK: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts for material needed by the Government or for any undertaking controlled directly or indirecty by the Government have been placed abroad since the Armistice to date; and whether he will give the amounts in detail and the reasons in each case for the step?

Sir A. GEDDES: Contracts for material needed by the Government have been placed abroad by the Board of Trade, since the Armistice to date, only in respect of timber and potash. With regard to timber, 348 contracts, representing a total of, approximately, £12,964,000, were entered into, and I am sending my hon. Friend particulars showing for each country the number of contracts placed and the estimated value. With regard to potash, one contract has been entered into with the German Government representing an amount of £750,000. In each case the contracts were entered into in order to secure necessary supplies of the commodities in question for the United Kingdom. The potash contract also provided a means whereby the German Government might pay for a portion of their imports of food. With regard to contracts entered into by Departments other than the Board of Trade, I would refer my hon. Friend to. the Ministers responsible for the contracting Departments concerned.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many timber contracts have been let within the British Empire?

Sir A. GEDDES: I could provide the full figures, but I do not carry them in my head. A great many of the contracts are in Canada; there are some in Finland and some in Sweden. These are all contracts entered into at the end of last year, or the early part of this year. There are no. recent contracts.

Sir N. MOORE: Would the right hon. Gentleman give his attention to the ques-
tion of shipping to Australia? At the present time there is any amount of timber there awaiting export to this country—

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.

Mr. ARNOLD: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the exports and imports of the United Kingdom for the first nine months of the year?

Sir A. GEDDES: The aggregate value of all exports from the United Kingdom daring the first nine months of the present year amounted to 639½ million pounds, of which 98¼ million pounds represented foreign and colonial goods re-exported. The value of our imports during the same period was 1,166½ million pounds.

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. KILEY: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the articles in respect of which import restrictions continue, and on what grounds these restrictions are imposed?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am sending the hon, Member a copy of the statement published in the Press on the 23rd August, which contains a list of articles of which the importation is restricted. The general object of the restrictions was explained by the Prime Minister in his statement on trade policy just before the Recess.

Mr. KILEY: Are we to understand that there has been no alteration since the date mentioned?

Sir A. GEDDES: There has been no alteration whatever in connection with import restrictions since the list was published; but there has been a great relaxation in connection with exports.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it proposed to continue the restrictions on imports from countries where there has been a collapse of the exchange, or the other way round?

Sir A. GEDDES: That was fully explained by the Prime Minister in his statement. If the need arises such restrictions will be imposed. So far no need has arisen.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will these additional restrictions be imposed without the House having any voice in the matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: The whole matter will be before the House in a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Mr. BRIANT: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present cost of living compared with the cost at the date of the introduction of the Profiteering Bill?

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply to this question. On 1st August—the date next before the introduction of the Profiteering Bill for which prices re, turns were collected—the average increase in the cost of maintaining a pre-war standard of living was about 115 per cent. On 1st October the corresponding figure was 120 per cent., the rise being due mainly to seasonable increases in the cost of milk and eggs.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMY.

Mr. CHADWICK: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether during the coming winter he proposes to take any further steps of an organised nature to bring before the public the need for increased national economy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend refers to an organised propaganda at the public expense, I do not think that this should be necessary. I hope that Members of the House are fully impressed by the need for economy, and will not only help to enforce it in the House, but will also make it the subject of addresses to their constituents. If, in particular, Members will refrain, and will induce their constituents to refrain, from pressing for new expenditure, a first step will have been made in the right direction.

An HON. MEMBER: That is in the future.

Mr. J. JONES: What about the new world the Prime Minister promised?

Sir DONALD MACLEAN (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great anxiety in the House
and the country as to the grave financial position in which the country is placed, he will give an early opportunity for discussion of the subject in this House, and if he will state the date he will propose to give that opening; on that occasion will the right hon. Gentleman give us the widest possible Parliamentary opportunity for discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): As already stated, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is laying White Papers on the Table which he hopes will be in the hands of hon. Members at the very latest by Monday—some may he in the hands of Members at the week-end. The Government propose that immediately afterwards there should be a discussion of the general financial position. I suggest that the exact date, and the nature of the discussion which best suits the convenience of Members, should be settled in the usual way between the parties.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his assurance that no matter to what extent there is agitation, either inside or outside the House in favour of economy, he will not be deterred from carrying out the reconstruction programme to which every Member of the House is pledged?

The PRIME MINISTER: That will be fair matter for observation in the course of the discussion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps are in contemplation to fund the floating debt, or otherwise to restrict the unlimited creation of credit by the unrestricted issue of Treasury notes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to await the discussion which the Prime Minister has just promised, in the course of which I hope to deal with that and other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE (by Private Notice): asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the great reduction of men now taking place in
the Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth, owing to the lack of Government work, he will urge upon the Board of Admiralty the necessity of constructing ships other than ships of war in this dockyard, and so retain the men in useful employment, instead of driving them to take unemployment benefit, a benefit the men do not like, and which is a wholly unremunerative charge upon the State, and if he can make any statement as to the Admiralty intentions on this subject?

Mr. LONG: The whole question of the reduction of men in the Royal Dockyards owing to lack of Government work, and various suggestions for meeting the situation, are under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. I am afraid the particular suggestion made by my hon. Friend is not altogether consistent with the advice previously given to the Government on other questions.

Sir HENRY COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will take care that work is not provided at Portsmouth by taking it away from other parts of the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS EMERGENCY COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the activities of the Emergency Committee for the assistance of Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians in distress; if he has any knowledge of the nationality of those who are giving financial support to an organisation which is occupied in finding employment in this country for enemy aliens to the exclusion of ex-Service men who are out of work; and if it is the case that this Committee have succeeded in finding jobs for some of these aliens with employers who have conscientious scruples against engaging men who have been, crippled in the War; and, if so, whether the Government will take stops to prevent a society of this kind working against the interests of the men who have sacrificed themselves in the defence of this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am aware of the existence of this Committee and of the work it has done during the War. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the list of subscribers
published in the committee's last annual report. I am not aware that the allegations in the rest of the question are correct, and, therefore, the question of taking any steps in the matter does not arise.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the objects of that society?

Mr. SHORTT: I have not got them.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: You should read them out, and let us have them.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that the Government are unmindful of the necessity of finding jobs for ex-Service men, and does the right hon. Gentleman think it is advisable that this society, which is finding jobs for our former enemy aliens, should continue?

Mr. SHORTT: My hon. Friend must not -imagine anything of the sort, and his -question is a very serious reflection on British employers of labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S ATTENDANCE).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to resume his attendance at Question Time, in accordance with the constitutional practice?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have only just received notice of the question put by my hon. Friend. I dealt with that matter very fully and, I think, very frankly, immediately before' the Recess. I regret that I cannot see any reason at the present moment for altering the view which I took then. The call upon my time in connection with the ordinary direction of administrative affairs is, I regret to say, as heavy as it ever was during the War, and I must appeal to the indulgence of the House for, at any rate, some time longer, and I promise that it will not be any longer than is absolutely necessary. I shall certainly not shirk my duty in that respect owing to any lack of desire to come here to answer questions.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask whether it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to come to this House at Question Time two days a week?

HON. MEMBERS: Or one day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider it.

WRIT ISSUED DURING AUTUMN RECESS.

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, a Warrant for a new Writ, namely:

For the Borough of Manchester (Rusholme Division), in the room of Robert Bardon Stoker, Esquire, deceased.

IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBERS.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that ho had received the following letters relating to the imprisonment of Members:

Headquarters,

Southern District, Cork,

15th September, 1919.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that, on the 12th day of September, 1919, Mr. Ernest Blyth, M.P. for North Monaghan, was arrested under a direction issued by me, and committed to Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, there to await his trial by court-martial for an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

W. L. WILLIAMS,

Major-General.

Competent Military Authority.

The Right Honourable The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W. 1.

General Headquarters, Ireland,

Parkgate, Dublin.

9th October, 1919.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that Mr. Patrick O'Keefe, M.P. for North Cork, who was arrested on 12th September, 1919, under a direction issued by the General Officer Commanding Southern District, Ireland, has been tried by district court-martial in Dublin, and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour for one year and six months for the following offences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations:

(1) Under Regulation 42, for making statements calculated to cause sedition among the civilian population.
(2) Under Regulation 27, for making statements likely to prejudice the discipline of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

The sentence has been duly confirmed, and the accused committed to prison.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

F. SHAW,

Lieut.-General Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland.

The Right Honourable The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W. 1.

Sligo County Petty Sessions Office,

Courthouse, Sligo,

18th October, 1919.

Sir,

I am directed by the Justices to report that Mr. Alexander McCabe, of Ballymote, county
Sligo, Member of Parliament for the South Division of the county of Sligo, was charged before Captain Frederick FitzPatrick, R.M., and Mr. R. W. Glass, R.M., at a Court constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, at Sligo County Petty Sessions on yesterday, the 17th instant for—

(1) That on the 28th day of September, 1919, at Carrowhubbock South and its vicinity, in the county of Sligo, the said Alexander McCabe with divers other persons to the number of three hundred and more did unlawfully, riotously, and routously assemble and gather together to the disturbance of the public peace.

Mr. McCabe was also charged for—

(2) That on the 28th day of September, 1919, at Carrowhubbock South, in the county of Sligo, being a district in which an association known by the name of the Dail Eireann has been prohibited under and by virtue of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, the said Alexander McCabe did unlawfully solicit contributions for the purpose of the said association, contrary to the Statute and Orders thereunder in such case made and provided.

Mr. McCabe was convicted of the said two offences and was ordered, in case No. 1. to be imprisoned in His Majesty's prison at Sligo for the space of three months at hard labour; and he was further ordered, at the expiration of the said term of imprisonment, to enter into recognisances himself in the sum of fifty pounds, with two sureties in the sum of twenty-five pounds, conditioned that he be of good behaviour towards all His Majesty s subjects for a period of twelve months, and in default of so doing to be imprisoned for a further period of three months.

In case No. 2 Mr. McCabe was ordered to be imprisoned for a period of three months of hard labour, but the imprisonment in this case was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in case No. 1.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

A. BURKE,

Clerk of Sligo County Petty Sessions.

The Right Honourable J. W. Lowther, P.C.,

Speaker of the House of Commons,

House of Commons,

London.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

The Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, for County of Lancaster (Widnes Division).

Walter Forrest, Esquire, for County of York, West Riding (Pontefract Division).

Captain John Henry Thorpe, for Borough of Manchester (Rusholme Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

PRECEDENCE FOR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I beg to move,
That for the remainder of the Session at every Sitting—

(1) Government Business do have precedence;
(2) At the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. SPEAKER shall propose the Question, That tins House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. SPEAKER shall adjourn the House, without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p m.; but if that Business has not been so concluded not later than 11.30 p.m., provided that, if notice of proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons shall stand upon the Notice Paper at any sitting, such proceedings shall be taken immediately after Government Business, and Mr. SPEAKER shall not adjourn the House until such proceedings shall have been concluded;
(3) Any Private Business set down or Motion foe Adjournment standing over under Standing Order No. 10, for consideration at a quarter-past Eight of the clock on any day shall, if Government Business is concluded before that time, be taken at the conclusion of Government Business and, for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Order, shall be deemed to be Government Business."

I do not think that it is necessary to say much in support of this Motion standing in my name on the Paper. It is a Motion to give the Government the whole time of the House during the Autumn Session. We have not had such a Motion during the War, for the simple reason that at the beginning of the Session the time has been taken for the whole of the Session. This year, as the House will remember, we only took the time up to an early date, and private Members had enjoyed the privileges usually given to them since then. Therefore, if this Motion were not adopted, we should be in the same position in that respect as at the beginning of an ordinary Session. It is a fact that when the exigencies of business have made it necessary to have an Autumn Session it has always been taken for granted that the need for that Autumn Session was to get through the necessary Government business. I feel certain that the House in all sections will take that view, and therefore I do not propose to take up time by giving our views upon it.

Mr. ADAMSON: I have no desire seriously to oppose the Motion just moved. by the Leader of the House, but before the
House agrees to it I think we should have his assurance that facilities will be given by the Government for the discussion of any important questions that may arise. In this connection I may point out that we ought to have from the Government at a very early date a statement with regard to the military and naval position in Russia, with an opportunity for a discussion of that matter. We may also' require to ask the Government for facilities to discuss the whole of the industrial position. We should, therefore, at least have this assurance from the right hon. Gentleman before the House agrees to his proposal.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I recognise at once that the claim which has been made by my right hon. Friend is a perfectly reasonable one, but I think in this connection that I can justify the position which the Government has taken up by our actions in the past, which in themselves afford the best assurance for the future. We have always recognised that it is essential that opportunities should be given for the discussion of any important subject when a discussion is desired by any large section of the House. During the last few years I do not think that there has been a single occasion when a demand of that kind has been made and when it has not been met by me. We wish that this should be done. Secondly, nothing is more desirous than that such questions as my right hon. Friend has raised should be discussed in the House of Commons, the one place above all others where they ought to be discussed, and I can assure him and the House that in the future, as in the past, they will find the Government always ready to meet any general demand of that kind.

Major Earl WINTERTON: I hope after what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will give sympathetic consideration to one point with regard to Section 2 of this Motion. I believe that the hours that are there laid down as to the time when any Motion for the Adjournment shall conclude have been arbitrarily included in these Motions for the last ten or eleven years. So far as I know, there is no authority for them in the Standing Orders or the Rules of Procedure. They have been proposed by the Government of the day. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might well consider whether he could not give us a little longer on the Adjornment Motion. The
Motion for the Adjournment of the House is one of the few remaining occasions on which private Members can ventilate their grievances, if they wish to do so, and any possible abuse of that privilege is always safeguarded by the fact that if Members are not sufficiently interested the House is counted out, because obviously it is not to the interests of the Government Whips to prevent such a count. Therefore, the risk of any such abuse is really very small. I suggest that the time given under this Motion, namely, one hour if Government business concludes before half-past ten, and less than one hour if it concludes after half-past ten, is really quite inadequate. It will be within the recollection of the House—and I hope that I shall have some support from the benches opposite—that very often very important and interesting questions have been raised on the Motion for the Adjournment, and sometime the Minister himself has been cut short in his reply. If my right hon. Friend could give us an hour and a quarter if Government business concludes before half-past ten and make it not later than twelve instead of half-past eleven p.m. if Government business has not been so concluded, it would be a valuable concession to the private Members of the House.

Mr. BILLING: I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. The Leader of the House has pointed out that when a majority of the Members of this House express a desire for a debate it is forthcoming. That is not really what this House wants. Occasionally it is the minority that should be heard, and it is so in the country as well. I might say that the privilege, if it were given, certainly could never be abused, but I submit that debate always should be allowed to be carried on until eleven o'clock at night. This Motion presumably is put forward to give the Government all the time that they want. Surely, if the Motion for the Adjournment is reached at half-past three or half-past five, it is obvious that the Government have had all the time that they want and they might leave the House to carry on its own debate, provided that there are forty Members present.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I admit that en the merits there is something to be said in favour of the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Earl Winterton),
but I hope he will not press it now, because I do not think a Motion which applies only to an Autumn Session is the occasion when we should consider an alteration in our general procedure in this respect. I hope, therefore, that his suggestion will not be pressed at this time. So far as this Motion is concerned, the only effect that it has is to give an hour instead of half an hour on particular occasions. That is all that the proposal itself does. It must be obvious to the House and to the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Billing) that it does not matter to the Government—it might matter to the Minister who has to attend—but I doubt very much if the time were prolonged whether it would be easy to get a House to listen to the discussion. I would like to say further, because I wish to get rid of any misapprehension which exists, that I only promised a discussion when a majority of the House desired it. In the future, as in the past, we shall be prepared to give facilities, as we have always done, whenever there is any general desire for a discussion, and that does not mean that there must be half the House, or anything like half the House, which expresses that desire. I hope the House will allow us now to have the Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of Aliens.)

(1) Subject and without prejudice to any treaty obligations no person or firm or company established or carrying on any trade, business, or undertaking in the United Kingdom shall be entitled to employ, or shall employ, in any establishment belonging to or carried on by such person, firm, or company in connection with such trade, business, or undertaking in the United Kingdom without the licence of the Secretary of State to be granted for special reasons any aliens to a greater number than twenty-five per cent. of the total number of the persons employed by him or them in the United Kingdom:
Provided however that if the total number of the persons so employed by any such person, firm, or company is less than five this Section shall not apply.
(2) Every person and firm and every such company as aforesaid who employs any aliens in the United Kingdom shall make a return to the Home Office on or before the first day of July in every year stating the full name and address of every such alien and the capacity in which he or she is employed and the total number of persons employed by him or them in the United Kingdom, and any further particulars which may be required by the Secretary of State.—[Sir Ernest Wild.]
Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir E. WILD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
It is a Clause which was considered by the Standing Committee for the greater part of three days out of the eight days which the Committee devoted to this Bill. The history of the Clause in Committee is interesting. On the 10th July we obtained a Second Reading for it by fifteen votes to twelve. On the 15th July a number of hon. Members appeared in the Committee who had taken very little interest in the proceedings earlier, and, unfortunately, several of our supporters were unavoidably absent, and so the Clause was rejected by sixteen votes to thirteen. It was carried on the one occasion by three votes and on the second occasion was rejected by three votes. I desire to point out to the House, however, that the Clause as proposed in Committee was a much more drastic Clause than that which now appears on the Paper. As it was proposed in Committee it restricted the number of aliens who might take part in any particular employment, to 10 per cent. Now we have adopted the figure of 25 per cent. I
desire very shortly to summarise the arguments put before the Committee in favour of the Clause. If I were asked to state in a sentence or two the object of this Clause I should prefer to employ words which are not my own, but are better than any words of mine:
We must preserve our assets, not merely underground, such as coal, but the living assets that are above the ground. You have to teach all the people all the time that this country is theirs, in peace as well as in war.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I am glad that that sentence was received with cheers, because it was received with cheers when addressed to the Sheffield Cutlers by the Prime Minister last week. The Prime Minister went on to state the problem that lies before this country. He stated that there were 200,000 more men and women engaged in industry than there were during the War; that there were 400,000 women for whom employment had not yet been found; and that there were 400,000 or 500,000 men yet to be demobilised, for whom employment will have to be found. Summing up the problem in one of those picturesque sentences which some people regard merely as perorations, but which I prefer to regard as practical politics, he said:
Heavier burdens than ever, shorter hours, higher wages, a better standard of living for millions more men and women—that is the problem. Can we solve it?
Those who support this Clause respectfully answer that conundrum in this way. We say that you can solve the problem by giving employment to your own people rather than to aliens, and, in words that I might quote from Holy Writ, "Let the children first be filled." It is quite unnecessary at this time of day to detain the House more than a minute or two on the question of the alien peril. Anybody who wants to realise what that peril really is has only to take a walk down the Mile End Road or the Whitechapel Road, or in the East End of London generally. They will find those places literally infested by aliens, and that practically all the names on the shops are the names of people who are alien to this country.

Lieut.-Colonel W. THORNE: There are sonic in Park Lane too !

Sir E. WILD: I am afraid there is not much employment in Park Lane. If my hon. and gallant colleague, as I am proud to call him, will support us, as I am sure he will, on later Clauses and Amendments
to this Bill, he will find that Park Lane as well as Whitechapel will be dealt with. Another point that was argued in Committee at some length was the question of waiters in hotels. One of the objects of the promoters of this Clause is that we should not revert to the very undesirable practice, which obtained before the War, of having the great majority of the waiters in hotels of alien origin. That that was a fact hon. Members know for themselves. I troubled the Committee, and I will trouble the House, with just one short extract from a. letter received by me from a British waiter. He said:
Can you not reduce it to 5 per cent.? For years I hare worked in the best West End and City restaurants. Sometimes I was the only Britisher in an establishment of fifty or more. Some years ago at a certain hotel there were between eighty and ninety waiters, and we could not muster ten Englishmen.
He went on to give other illustrations of a number of hotels, mentioning them by name, in which before the War the great majority of the employes were aliens. I venture to think, and I venture respectfully to press upon the House, that that is a state of things which is altogether inimical to the interests of this country. Everybody knows that the foreign waiters, and particularly those of enemy origin, were the very centres of the spy system that obtained during the War. They were interned or repatriated, and I do not think it is necessary to urge upon the House that it is undesirable that aliens should again have a large percentage of employment in our great hotels. Then there is the question of unemployment. The Prime Minister pointed out at Sheffield, though it was, perhaps, unnecessary to do so, because we know it. ourselves, that unemployment will be, and is, a great problem that we have to face. I venture to suggest to the House -that one of the ways of preventing unemployment is to see that our own people have the first option of what employment there is to be given. Then there is the argument, and it is a cogent one and one with which I have some personal acquaintance. regarding the extent to which vice and crime are fostered by aliens; and in speaking of aliens in this connection I by no means limit myself to our late enemies, because there is no doubt that a great deal of the vice and crime that come before our criminal Courts is fostered and originated by so-called neutral aliens, and more particularly by Russians.
This new Clause, as the House will observe, does not deal merely with the question of enemy aliens, but with all aliens. It I may examine it for a moment, it lays down and seeks to make law the proposition that in any employment where there are more than five employed—and I may say that the number "five" was adopted because we did not want to interfere with small businesses or with the Italian ice-cream vendor and his wife or anything of that kind—in any employment where there are more than five, subject and without prejudice to any treaty obligations, the employer shall not employ more than 25 per cent. of aliens in his trade or business. It makes, however, the proviso that there may be a licence granted by the Home Secretary of State for special reasons. It was pointed out, I think by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in Committee, that there might, for instance, be some alien trade here using a secret process, and it might conceivably be even in the interests of the State that only aliens should be employed in it. I do not agree with that, but I am trying to meet even that objection. If that were the case my right hon. Friend would be able to grant a special licence, and that trade could be carried on by aliens.
The only hostile criticism that can be made about this Clause is that it errs in moderation. I think the figure of 25 per cent. is entirely too large a proportion. At the same time one does desire that no legitimate grievance shall survive. If one errs at all, I think that probably the House would rather err on the side of generosity, although this country ought to know by now how much it has been made to suffer by erring on the side of generosity during the last decade. In seeking for arguments that may be adduced against the Clause, I have read and re-read the proceedings of the Standing Committee, and I find that five arguments were put forward. With the permission of the House I will say just a word upon each of them. The first was an argument brought forward by the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Greenwood), who was then the Under-Secretary for the Home Department and has now been temporarily translated to the Oversea Trade Department on the way to higher office. He said that any Clause like this would be a violation of commercial treaties. The Committee was inquisitive enough to say that if there were such treaties they would like to see them, and after some beating about the bush they
were produced. At the next meeting we had a summary GI those treaties, and we found that a number of them did exist. Upon examining those treaties it was apparent that they did not bear out the contention of the hon. Baronet, and that this Clause would in no way violate any of them. The hon. Baronet was asked whether those treaties were going to be denounced, and lie said he did not know; but we were anxious that there should be no loophole for saying that we were not carrying out our treaties or were not treating them with respect, and so we accepted an Amendment, which comes at the very beginning of this Clause, to add the words "Subject and without prejudice to any treaty obligations." There were treaties with Italy and Japan. It is interesting to note that at the moment there is no treaty with China; apparently the Government is not pledged to the importation of Chinese labour. The Foreign Office or the Home Office cannot argue that there is any attack on treaty obligations, because if there were such an attack—and I do not accept that contention—those obligations are safeguarded by the very words of the Clause as it will be submitted to the House. I may also say that those words would enable any proper arrangement to be made with the United States of America. I for one have been impressed with the arguments that we have had in private with certain hon. Friends, some of whom support the Clause and some of whom do not, while some of them are doubtful at the moment. Some people say with regard to the United States that it would be right that different considerations should obtain in regard to them. It is perfectly easy to make an arrangement with the United States under this Clause as it stands, as long as the people coming from the United States are not of German origin or hyphenated-Germans, or are not people who have been naturalised and have become American subjects merely because of the War. All that can be done by the Home Office under this Clause as it stands.
The second argument was our old friend the reprisals argument. We were told that if this great country ventured to put into an Act of Parliament dealing with the alien question this Clause or any Clause like it there would be the danger of reprisals by foreign countries. That as an old argument. It is an argument which was adduced again and again on
the question of Tariff Reform, when it was suggested that we might do something to protect our own interests against Germany and other competitors. It is not an argument which will frighten the House, particularly because we have inserted the provision that any employer may have 25 per cent. of aliens in his employment. I suggest to the House with very great respect and with all the power at my command that any British employer going to a foreign country and setting up a factory there could not complain if the law of that country said: "You can bring only one-quarter of your staff from your own country. If you come into our country seeking its hospitality, you must employ 75 per cent. of our people." That is what we say. I do not think British employers could complain of such a regulation, therefore I do not see how an alien can possibly complain of it. Then there was the argument which was seriously put forward that it would mean a charge upon the public purse if you denied employment to aliens who came here. The answer to that, in the first place, is that you do not deny employment; you give them employment up to 25 per cent. of the number employed in any particular employment. The second answer to that argument is that if this Clause proved to be an inducement to a number of aliens to leave this country it would be all to the good. I think it was the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce) who said that this Clause would mean the re-arrangement and repatriation of whole districts.

Sir W. PEARCE: I made that observation before the 25 per cent. was put into the Clause. The Clause as originally drafted contained no limitations as to the percentage. It is obvious that that would have made many small businesses in the East-end of London impossible. The 25 per cent. has made all the difference in the world.

Sir E. WILD: I am very glad to hear my hon. Friend say that, and I will not pursue that matter. The next argument put forward was the obsolete economic text-book argument. When I read a short extract from a speech made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), it will be unnecessary to tell the House it is a paradoxical argument. He said:
The more people who work, the more demand there is for labour. The more aliens who work, the more demand there will be for British labour.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear hear!

Sir E. WILD: I am surprised that any hon. Member here can be found to endorse that sentiment. Consider where it leads to. It leads to this: that, supposing you have the whole of the jobs in the East-end of London being done by aliens, that would make very much more work for British labour. That is a reductio ad absurdum. This is a practical question not to be dealt with by economic quibbles. It is a question for all Members of this House. We all know it. If one goes to a constituency which has this menace before it he gets the working men coming along and asking, "When are you going to deal with this matter? "What is the good of talking and perorating to Sheffield cutlers and other people and refusing employment to your own people when you refuse to pass legislation dealing with these aliens? Then came the last argument, which was the cloven hoof which showed through the Departmental opposition to our efforts—that was the argument about Orders in Council. In Committee the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Greenwood) said:
We are going to introduce into the draft Order to be made under this Bill a Clause similar to Article 22 B of the existing Aliens Restriction Order.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) asked:
Is it in the draft submitted to us?
And the hon. Baronet said it was not. He proceeded
I will give you the basis of what it will be.
This is the basis of the regulation that the Home Office proposes to put in the draft Order:
A person shall not take steps to obtain the services for work, other than munitions work, in the United Kingdom, of aliens or any alien not in the United Kingdom, except with the permission in writing of the Ministry of Labour and subject to such special and general conditions as the Ministry of Labour may impose.
That is the Clause to be inserted for the moment into the Order which my right hon. Friend proposes to make under the Bill when he gets it. The answer to that is that it entirely disposes of the question of treaty obligations. I see the difference. Our case is much too good for me to endeavour to overstate or mis-state it. Whether for good or ill, I have never consciously mis-stated anything. I quite
agree that the difference between us is, first, that our Clause deals with all aliens who are in the country or who come into the country, while the proposed Regulation will deal only with aliens who are proposing to come into the country. The whole fight between us—it is a fight we had on this Clause and on every Clause—is whether legislation shall be by Order in Council or by Act of Parliament. I venture to affirm, and I believe the proposition will carry the assent of many of my hon. Friends and many of my right hon. Friends as well, that D.O.R.A. and all her satellites are loathed by the constituencies and are utterly subversive of constitutional government. Parliament wants to resume its right to make the law, and the man in the street is entitled to know what the law is. At the present time you say that every man knows the law, whereas the position is that hardly any lawyer knows the law. You cannot know the law now. That ought not to be possible at this stage of our constitutional development. This is the first opportunity of coining to a fight on the question, if the Government mean to fight—I hope that wiser counsels will prevail—upon the great constitutional Parliamentary issue, Are you going to make your law and put it down in black and white so that we all know what it is, or are you going to legislate by Order in Council, which may be cancelled to-morrow and which may vary with the individual idiocyncrasies of each individual Secretary of State. I hope it will not come to a fight. I can hardly believe, now that the Government has had an opportunity collectively to consider this question, that they can oppose some such Clause as this.
Those who support this Clause are not enamoured of its particular wording, so long as we get the principle established that we shall give only a certain percentage of employment to aliens and the first chance to our own people. May I remind the House and the country that one of the great planks in the Coalition victory was the cry of "Britain for the British." Hon. Members who did not join in that cry are entitled to ridicule the proposition. I am not concerned to quote the pledges of Cabinet Ministers, although I could quote them in abundance, and no doubt they will be quoted in the course of the Debate on this Bill. I am only concerned to say that I, and I believe all the supporters of the
Government, when we went to the electorate, largely won our seats by saying that we would do something to give employment to our own people and restore the balance so that this country would no longer be the dustheap for any aliens who chose to come here. I cannot understand the opposition which comes from certain hon. Members opposite. I suppose that they have made up their minds, for very proper reasons, and upon arguments which appeal to their consciences. I hope they will give us the same credit for believing in the arguments we put forward. As a young Member having taken a particular interest in this subject, I say, and my hon. Friends who take the same platform will say, that it will be our duty to press upon the Government that by adopting some such Clause as this they can redeem their pledge on a domestic subject. This is a matter peculiarly within their own province. It is not a question like the hanging of the Kaiser, in regard to which you depend upon the consent of other people; it is a domestic problem. It is only consistent with the honour of the Government and the pledges they and their supporters gave at the poll that some such Clause as this should be incorporated in the Bill, so that we should be able to say, in the words of the Prime Minister:
You have to teach all the people all the time that this country is theirs in peace as well as in war.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to second the Motion. I entirely agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said in respect to the pledges of the Government and of all the supporters of the Government at the last Election. Not only did the supporters of the Government, so far as I have been able to learn, give categorical pledges throughout their election campaign on this matter, but it was one of the two or three subjects which excited by far the greatest amount of interest in the country and which obtained for the Government the greatest amount of support. We have been very busily engaged during the present Parliament with a very large programme of reconstructive reform, such as housing, health, land acquisition, and so forth. The experience of a large majority of hon. Members at the Election was the same as mine, that all these subjects, although they excited a certain amount of interest, paled altogether in interest at popular meetings before the suggestion that after our experience before the War
we were going to keep our own country for our own people. That was really the issue upon which this House was to a very large extent returned, and it would certainly have been a very strange reversal of the proper order of things if the enormous majority returned upon this issue, and the Government which gave them a lead upon this issue, should now, a very few months after that Election, turn round and neglect all the pledges they gave at that time. Surely the proposition as it stands now in this Clause is one which, apart altogether from matters of principle, is an eminently reasonable one. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is really too generous to aliens as it now stands. Originally, as we proposed it in Committee, the Clause limited the employment of aliens to 10 per cent. in any one establishment, and I certainly think 10 per cent. a much more reasonable figure than the 25 per cent. at which it now stands. However, the change has at all events conciliated an hon. Member below me, and if it has that effect on many hon. Members it may possibly be worth while to make the sacrifice.

Sir W. PEARCE: It is not that change, but the change that gives exemption to businesses which employ fewer than five people. That has made all the difference in the world. As originally introduced it applied to every alien, and it could not be worked in principle. Now that small businesses are out it makes all the difference in the world.

Mr. McNEILL: At all events, I am very glad to find that the change has had the effect of obtaining support from a larger body of opinion in the House. Is it unreasonable to say that in establishments giving employment in this country not more than a fourth of all the volume of employment should be alien—in other words, that at least three-quarters of the people employed in any business should be our own people? Can anyone really say that is an unreasonable proposition? [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] I hope my hon. Friend will find himself in a small minority. If we had any doubt before as to the necessity for legislation of this sort I think it was removed to a great extent by an answer I heard the Home Secretary give to a question this very day. I did not exactly follow what was the purpose of the society or association, but I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman admits his knowledge of the existence in this country
of a society whose aim and object is to provide employment for aliens coming into this country.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The hon. Member is quite wrong. I know nothing whatever of the sort. I admitted the existence of a society which existed all through the War to give financial assistance to enemy aliens consisting of Germans and Austrians who gave help to this country. It has nothing to do with employment.

Mr. McNEILL: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I only listened to the question. I have not yet seen it in print, and I evidently mistook the purport of it. There was one argument which was used in Committee which, I think, in some respects was, perhaps, the strongest argument used against this Clause. I think it was used by my Noble Friend (Lord H. Cecil). He said, perfectly truly according to the text-books, that the more people you employ the more employment there will be to give, and some of us at the time said that, although that was perfectly true as au economic proposition, the result, if it was logically carried out, would be recognised as absolutely intolerable in this country, because, of course, it equally applies to any cheap labour which might be brought in—for instance, Chinese labour, about which we used to hear a good deal some years ago. It would be equally true, as my Noble Friend said, that in a certain sense it would increase production and it might also increase employment. But s e have long ago gone away from that old Free Trade argument, as regards labour at all events, and it is quite well recognised, by nobody so strongly as by hon. Members opposite, that we cannot allow our own labour to be subjected to the free play of the labour market of the world, and that we must give protection of some sort to it. Therefore, it is quite in line with what has been not only the policy of the Labour party but the policy of practically all parties in this country for a long time past, to restrict in some sense, at all events, the competition coming from abroad into our own labour market. I think the experience of the War convinced the people of this country that they had been going far too much in an easy-going, thoughtless manner with regard to their own nationality and their own employ-
ment, and if we are to have a change in this respect they are resolved for the future to keep employment in this country for our own people to a large extent. Under these circumstances, having regard to the very reasonable proposition in this Clause, allowing a generous proportion of 25 per cent. of alien labour in any establishment, having regard to the safeguards which this Clause provides for hard cases, which may be dealt with for special reasons by the Secretary of State, I can hardly believe that this House, after the pledges which have been given and the knowledge that we have of the feeling on this subject throughout the country, will decline to pass this Clause.

Mr. KILEY: I hope the Government will under no consideration accept this Amendment. I am not unmindful of the fact that it has secured the endorsement of no fewer than four able and learned members of the legal profession to whom, if I wanted their advice on legal matters, I should not hesitate to apply, but when it comes to matters of trade I am sure they will not complain if I say I should prefer to take advice on that matter from a quarter other than that to which I have referred. What would be the position of many traders, especially in the constituency which I represent, in which possibly there are more aliens than in any other constituency in the Kingdom? Incidentally, they are not voters, but they are citizens who have played in the past and are still playing a very important part in the commercial development of this country. The constituency was formerly a very poor district, dependent very largely upon riverside traffic for the maintenance of its residents. We were able to get over a number of aliens who brought skilled knowledge with them, and set up great and important industries, and we have changed that district from a place of poverty to a place of substantial prosperity which has no. alone brought employment. to aliens, but has entirely changed the district and enabled us to found great trades and supply our own people and do an immense export business and to establish businesses which would not have been in existence if we had not been able to' bring over people possessing the necessary skill to establish and found these trades. I recall very vividly the mantle trade. Our Colonial and Overseas buyers. came to London to make their purchases but had to go to Berlin to buy the
stocks of mantles which they required. We were able to bring over mantle makers into the East End of London and as the result not a Colonial buyer for the last ten years has ever thought of going to Berlin to obtain mantles. He can obtain all he wants in this country. It has not only created employment for people in the mantle trade, but it has benefited our banks, ships, and railways. The cigarette industry and the cabinet-making industry have been set up in the same way, and above all, there are the advantages that the Government derived during the War in having a great clothing factory are due to this alien labour. We were able to produce by its means no less than £10,000,000 worth of khaki uniforms, and what a godsend it was to the country to have those resources at our hand instead of having to go abroad, as we should otherwise have had to do. That is one of the reasons why I am very reluctant that the Government should undertake to put any restriction upon trade matters without a full inquiry from traders who, at all events, may be presumed to know something about the industry with which they are connected.
The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Wild) referred to the amount of crime due to these aliens. I quite realise that he knows something about this subject. It has been my privilege, on more than one occasion, sitting on the Quarter Sessions Bench to listen to him when he very ably, eloquently and successfully defended aliens from charges brought against them. But I am anxious that the House should not be led away by any vague statements, and I have therefore taken the trouble to look up the number of convictions and I find, over a period of years, that the proportion of aliens varies from 1.27 to 2.25 of the total number of convictions. That is a totally different statement from that which the hon. and learned Gentleman made in a previous debate, when he asserted that something like half the vice of the country was due to aliens

Sir E. WILD: What I said in that debate was that it was not a question of convictions of aliens but of crimes and vice directly due to aliens.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. KILEY: I can only go upon the definite figures and I have quoted the definite figures which are available. I do not question that there may be some crimes other than those which are recorded, but the fact of the convictions is as I have stated.
There is, in a city with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is connected, Norwich, a very important weaving industry and if we had prevented the importation of aliens that very important industry in that very important city would not be in the prosperous condition it is in at present. The effect of this Amendment would have a most serious result on our foreign relations. We have a small number of aliens in Great Britain, compared with other countries. If you take France, Germany, Spain, or any of the great countries you will find they have a far larger percentage of aliens. I have not figures as to the number of British subjects in other countries, but I know that it is very substantial. At the present time, when under the League of Nations Covenant we are trying to bring about a better understanding between nations, the effect of a restriction of this kind would be serious. This restriction does not apply merely to enemy aliens who are very few indeed in this country, and very few in the East End of London, because there the aliens are mostly neutrals or the subjects of Allied States, and they will suffer much more than the enemy aliens under this restriction. I want the House to realise that. When we are considering the workings of the principles of the League of Nations to bring about more friendly relations between the different countries, a restriction of this kind cannot fail to have a very injurious effect. I hope, therefore, the Government will not under any circumstances accept this Clause.

Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: I desire to say a few words against the adoption of this Clause. If I understand it aright, we are to legislate so that no employer of labour in this country shall in future be allowed, under any circumstances, to employ more than 25 per cent. of people who are not of British origin. At any rate, they are not to be employed except with the consent of the Secretary of State. There is nothing said in the Clause about the capacity in which these people may be employed. Therefore, if you take it literally, and I suppose it would have to be taken literally if it is embodied in an Act of Parliament, it would mean in any capacity whatever, and the number of people employed would have to be taken into account in ascertaining the 25 per cent. It is obvious that this would involve in a large number of workshops in this
country, where the people are working very hard and are producing things that are valuable, the counting of heads in order to ascertain exactly what proportion of the employés are of this country or of other nationalities. There are many businesses in this country in regard to which, fortunately, we rule the world, and they were introduced into this country by aliens. We ought not to forget that there are several most important businesses of that description in England to-day. If we were to shut out from this country people who were coming to work, then that is altogether a different proposition than shutting out people who are of no particular good to this country and who are otherwise objectionable and ought to be shut out by alien restriction and not by putting impediments in the way of employment on work which would be of advantage to the country, whether done by an Irishman, an Englishman, or a Frenchman.
This Clause proceeds mainly upon the basis of a very narrow view of ordinary economics. The people who have an idea of this kind in their heads—I give them all credit for being sincere—are looking at this country as if it were the whole world, and as if the British people did not go abroad. My main objection to this Clause is the fact that we in England have fewer aliens than any other country, and that there are more British subjects abroad than there are aliens in this country. We have to look at the thing all round, and not merely in the interests of certain people who are supposed to be out of work in the East End of London because aliens are taking their place. We have to look at a very much more important point, and that is, the enterprise of England and of those people who have gone overseas and have established splendid industries there, and are doing work and producing wealth for the whole world and to the advantage of this country. The real truth is that there is no country in the world so dependent on freedom and liberty for its trade and manufacture in every respect as we in this country. All over the world, thank God, we have to-day British enterprise, British trade, and British capital. When you read this Clause it sounds reasonable. There is a reasonable sound about the 25 per cent., and so on, but I believe it is an appeal to low instincts: it is an appeal to prejudice, and I believe it is an appeal to ignorance,
which in some respects is rather worse than either prejudice or low instincts. It is not founded upon a rational basis.
I would rather leave a matter of this kind in the hands of the Government. They know the true facts. They have means of knowing about trade, employment and manufacture, and about the number of aliens who are engaged in particular industries in this country and the number of British people who are engaged in these and other businesses abroad. The Clause does not affect the important question as to what aliens are to be admitted into this country. if we were going to tighten up the definition of w hat is a desirable alien to admit into this country, I think we should be upon ground against which it is almost impossible to argue, but when you are limiting a Clause like this to the question of who shall be employed and who shall not be employed, when once they have been admitted into this country, you are in danger of creating very serious difficulties. This question affects myself personally, and it affects others who have their enterprises and their money and their energies abroad. In the concern in which I am particularly interested we have taken on a large number of demobilised officers, and we have been providing them with an honourable and lucrative career, and sending them where they want to go, namely, into a foreign country, to do something for themselves, to get a good living, and to do something for the trade and prosperity of this country. In those foreign countries there are laws which ordinarily impose upon British subjects in those countries any disabilities whatever that are made applicable to their subjects in this country. Remember that when we go to foreign countries we are aliens and we cannot complain—if we did complain it would not matter because it would automatically apply to us—when a law of this kind is immediately made applicable to us in those countries. To raise difficulties in regard to the employment of British subjects in all the foreign countries of the world, which this Clause would automatically do, would be a profound mistake. We are on very dangerous ground in listening to suggestions to embody this Clause in the Bill. because in doing so we should be committing an economic mistake in our own country and we should be seriously embarrassing and
prejudicing our own people who are the pioneers of British trade and enterprise in all the other countries of the world.

Sir H. NIELD: I congratulate my hon. Friend who has just spoken upon the sentiment which he has just expounded, but I would remind him that nine-tenths of them are elementary truths which did not need to be driven home, and are not applicable to the present situation in which we find ourselves. There is one thing about his speech that does deserve notice, because it was so frank, and that was, that his financial interests depend upon the conditions of things that we deprecate. It was a frank admission, and I accept it as being one of those frank speeches that we do occasionally get in this House on matters of this kind. He has reminded us that when we go abroad we become aliens.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: We are aliens in the other countries.

Sir H. NIELD: Surely that is almost a nursery truth. I suppose we may take it that most of us understand that, and that we understood it when we put down this Clause. The hon. Member not having been a member of the Standing Committee, does not know that this Clause was carried in Committee, and it was carried on Second Reading, as amended, and it was only when the Motion was put that the Clause stand part of the Bill that the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shortt) and of his secretaries—who were rather numerous then, because it was a transition period—succeeded in getting three more members into the Division, with the result that the final admission of the Clause to this Bill was defeated by three. A highly commendable business for the British public to know that legislation here may be materially influenced by three votes in Committee ! The point here has to do with the pledges that were given to the electors last December. Have hon. Members taken the trouble to get the verbatim Reports taken in Committee on this Bill? I trust they have, because it would justify the taking of the vote upstairs, and it would also enable them to answer a good many questions in their constituencies when the time comes to deal with them. If hon. Members have read these Reports, they would see that very early in the proceedings upon this Clause, which we carried
against the Government, these pledges were very fully and amply discussed. I will turn not merely to the pledges of the Government, which we know had relation to enemy aliens mainly, but I will turn to this particular question of employment.
I quite understand how the hon. Member for Whitechapel would feel if a Clause of this sort were passed. So far as they are still aliens who have no vote they are no doubt able considerably to influence the votes of others. Whitechapel of to-day is considerably different from the Whitechapel of forty years ago. If the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool had been made in 1880, I would have accepted every word of it. Up to that time this country had benefited considerably by the influx of those who fled from persecution abroad and settled, like the weavers in Spitalfields and Norwich, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. I accept that every immigration which took place down to the year 1880 was in the main if not wholly beneficial to this country from the point of view of trade. If the hon. Member for Staffordshire has any evidence of objections raised, when the Edict of Nantes was revoked, to these people coming over here, I should like to have some reference to the meagre reports of the Debates in Parliament of that day to show that there was organised opposition. This country has learned its lesson since 1880. In 1889 it was found necessary to appoint a Royal Commission in inquire into the conditions of aliens entering into this country. That Commission reported that the condition of things was very undesirable and that steps must be taken to control it. I wish sincerely that those steps had been taken, because in connection with proposals for alien legislation the most marvellous thing is that, however enthusiastic we may be about it and however successful in getting an Act through the House of Commons, its administration is sterilised and we get no real benefit from the legislation that is passed.
I may refer to one or two conclusions of the Commission of 1889. Up to 1880 the East End of London was relatively free from anything like organised immigration, but of those who came afterwards it was stated that they are impoverished, in a destitute condition, deficient in cleanliness, practically with no sanitary habits, that they had been subjected to no medical examination on embarkation and arrival, and that they were liable to introduce
disease. I agree that the development of sanitation since then has done something to counteract the latter point, but it was also stated that among them are criminals—prostitutes and persons of that character—beyond the ordinary percentage of the native population of the country from which they come. The hon. Member for Whitechapel has taken the trouble to analyse the returns of convictions, whereas if he knows the undesirable alien he should know how unusually adroit and clever he is when he gets into the criminal Courts, and has to deal with open-handed English justice, in escaping the net and not being convicted, and if he had given us, instead of the convictions, the number of prosecutions, then we should have had something to go on.

Mr. KILEY: Crime in my Constituency Las decreased immensely during the last forty years.

Sir H. NIELD: Because the immigrant population has been forced further east by the erection of warehouses and the extension of docks, and things of that sort. In that constituency, while the population has gone down, the rateable value has gone up, and so it is you have this displacement taking place because of the proximity of Whitechapel to the City of London and to that part of the City of London that is rapidly becoming more and more the centre of the highest class of business, because many hon. Members know that it is contemplated that the developments in that part of the City will be in the course of a few years such as to transform it entirely into a place with a princely sort of buildings for shipping and other purposes. You have already this development in connection with shipping and insurance, and you have Lloyd's Avenue cutting its way right through what formerly were warehouses or partly slums. That is the reason why crime is decreasing, because the people are not there to commit it unless they come to rob the warehouses. But they are very close by. They are in Ratcliffe Highway and St. George's-in-the-East, and notoriously in Stepney, and they are transforming Mile End. But this Report emphasised these matters, and went on to say that on arrival, many being unskilled in any industrial trade, and in a state of poverty, work for a rate of wages below the standard at which a native can fairly
live. That, again, I admit is improving quite lately under our general legislation. There was an Act passed last year or the year before which gave the Board of Trade a general power to set up Trade Boards. There has been a Trade Board set up for tailoring, but it is quite recent—during the last two years—and you may be perfectly sure that if an alien can evade the provision of the Trade Boards he will do so in order to earn as much as he can.
Then it is pointed out that the unskilled labourers on their arrival set themselves to learn so as to earn better wages in different trades, but during the probationary period they produce work for a very low remuneration, and when by degrees they become skilled workers they are willing to accept a lower rate of wages than that demanded by the native workman, who, from this cause, to some extent is driven out from certain trades. Another reason urged by this Commission is that these immigrants, in so far as they belong to the Jewish faith, do not assimilate or harmonise with the native race, but remain a solid and distinct community whose existence in great numbers in certain areas gravely interferes with the observance of the Christian position. That was emphasised by the Commission which sat fourteen years later. In the interval nothing had been done and the position got so bad that riots had taken place from time to time of persons who had been deprived of employment by the increasing number of aliens employed in the East End, and a Commission sat, which was then moved by the late hon. Member for Stepney, Major Evans Gordon. On that Committee, of which I have here the Report, there sat Lord James of Hereford, Lord Rothschild, the late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, Sir Kenelm Digby, who was the only bureaucrat, and then Major Evans Gordon, Sir Henry Norman, who happily is still among us, and, lastly, the clerk to the Whitechapel Board of Guardians. This Commission sat for a very long time. The minutes of evidence are voluminous. They are terrifying in extent. But the Report was all but unanimous, and the only person who appended a Minority Report of any length was the one bureaucrat, Sir Kenelm, now Lord Digby, who introduced a number of objections from the purely bureaucratic point of view, which went to the root of most of the substantial findings that were given. Is it not curious that
this should really have been the only argumentative Minority Report? Lord Rothschild signed a Minority Report, but it was very brief. It is a very strange and significant fact that the only dissentient who gave reasons for his dissent is the Under-Secretary for the day.
The Commission came to conclusions which were very drastic. They said that every effort should be made to stop these people, and they made recommendations. They defined an undesirable alien, and they also found that the introduction of these people was a serious menace to the employment of English labour. They said, moreover, that it was an interference with trade, not only in the trade in which these people were engaged, but others, because they were so exclusive that they would only deal among themselves, and therefore the ordinary traders of the district were forced out by the introduction of this alien labour. The Report of this Commission is far too long for me to go into without delaying the House unduly, but there were criminal statistics given from the Report of the Prison Commission showing that the number of alien prisoners in the Metropolis rose gradually year by year with one exception from 1,143 in 1889 to 1,915 in 1903. Then they analyse the number and nationality of those prisoners. There is a long paragraph which is certainly fraught with great importance to those who represent the great working-class constituencies where the evil has come. Happily it has not come everywhere. It was at one time confined to the East End of London. It is now to be found in Manchester and Hull, and it is also to be found in Leeds and Sheffield, and in Scotland in the mining districts, but it is rare outside the Metropolis, and I do ask this House seriously to take some step which will prevent an extension of the mischief. Much as I dislike the discretion of the Home Office or putting it into the power of departmental officials to exercise these powers, because they are, after all, those who direct the policy of the Home Office in matters of detail of this sore, yet we have done it in the present Clause in order that they might be able to adapt to circumstances the nature of the Order to be made. The Amendments made in Committee and incorporated in the Clause which is now proposed will be quite sufficient to meet
any real case of hardship that can be raised in reference to business or otherwise.
The paragraph to which I refer is a statement upon the industrial and economic effect of alien immigration. It refers to the sub-division of labour in the boot-making and cabinet-making industries, in which trades there had been a great influx of aliens, and while the subdivision of labour had introduced cheaper articles, yet against that must be placed the fact that the manufacture of these cheaper articles produced in the trades referred to a condition of rates of wages for labour far below the standard which is paid to British workmen. It is a most instructive Report. In so far as the Stationery Office can afford copies I hope hon. Members will obtain them and read them for themselves. In 1905 there was a terrible conflict between the two sides in this House over that particular Bill which was very much decimated, but finally passed. Then the whole thing was rendered abortive by an Order made about December of 1905, immediately after the assumption of office by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's Government, when by a. stroke of the pen the then Home Secretary, Lord Gladstone, was able to defeat the whole policy of the measure. I hope the House will accept this Clause. I hope also that the Government will realise that this subject can no longer be played with; it has been played with far too long. When the measure is passed I hope it will work as smoothly as legislation can work, and that even though we may not see our way to deport any of those who are already here, it may act as a deterrent to those who desire to come over, as so many have come in the past, at the invitation of friends here and with the aid of that useful commodity which one sees very rarely now, the £5 note, which used to do duty so often by going out and coming back again for production to the immigration officer as evidence of means. Such notes got so greasy in time that at last they had to be discarded for something else. That is the sort of thing we want to stop. I hope the Government will not oppose the Clause, or at all events that they will not put the Whips on against it.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope the House will certainly reject this proposal. May I venture to remind the House of what the Clause is, and the purpose for which it was moved, because the discussion on it, and certainly the speech to which we have
just listened, have not been devoted in the slightest degree to the purpose which the Clause has in view, but rather ranged over the general question of the non-admission of undesirable aliens. This Clause is not intended to keep out undesirable aliens; it is intended to provide work for the British subject. That was the purport of the Mover's speech. It is no use reminding us of the pledges about the admission of aliens into this country, and then to accuse us of not carrying out those pledges because we reject a proposal which does not effect that purpose at all. I think the House will come to the conclusion that this Clause does not carry out a single pledge given by any member of the Government or by a single supporter of the Government. The Clause, or some-think like it, was moved in the Committee upstairs. It is quite true that at first that Clause was carried, but it was not due to any kind of intrigue that the Clause was ultimately rejected. It was due to the fact that the Committee realised what the Clause was, and that it was a hopelessly unworkable proposition. When that Clause was being discussed, so little did the proposers know about it that they had to get up one after another, as an idea struck them, to move exceptions to their own Clause. If the Committee had gone on for a week, goodness only knows how many more exceptions they would have discovered. The Clause is made no more workable by giving the Home Secretary the power to licence for special reasons than it was when you had to pass exceptions to it in all sorts of directions. What the special reasons are we do not know. It would not mean that the aliens are undesirable, because the proper thing to do with them is to keep them out. We are dealing in this Clause with aliens who are considered E to be admitted, and who would be admitted. Take Sub-section (2). A man has to give an account on or before 1st July of the aliens he employs and the numbers that he employs. Take the clothing trade or any industry of that description where alien labour is largely employed. Ask them what it would mean and how it would be possible in a return of that sort to say what was 25 per cent. of the labour employed. There are different numbers employed every week and every day of the week. It is idle to suppose that the thing is as simple as it looks.
The question of reprisals has been ridiculed, but it is not a matter for ridicule; it is a serious matter. According to the information given to me, for one alien that we could replace in this country by British labour there are in foreign countries at least three Britishers who by way of reprisal could be replaced by natives of those countries, and no doubt in many cases they would be so replaced. That is a serious matter. In these days of flux, when the relations of one country to another are in a very unstable condition, it is not wise to perpetrate any pin-pricks or to invite any reprisals which can possibly be avoided. But there is something more than that. I wonder if the House has realised what could be done under this Section if it was passed. We have in this country millions of workers; soldiers and sailors have returned and been absorbed in labour, and there are the demobilised munition workers in very large numbers. I wonder if the House recollects how many aliens there are in this country altogether, allied, neutral, and enemy. If you eliminate the Belgian refugees, most of whom have now returned, there were something over 300,000 aliens in 1918. I quote from the Report of the Aliens Committee. Of these about 100,000 were in the Metropolitan area. What is that among the whole population? Take this proposal. It does not deal with anyone who employs fewer than five people. How many will that take out of the 300,000? It will take an enormous number out of the 100,000 in the Metropolis. There are all those shops with foreign names upon them, to which reference has been made. They would continue. It would not put a single British tradesman in their places. What would the result be, supposing you had 200,000 aliens employed in various industries up and down the country. Suppose you turn a number of these out of their employment, say 50,000 or 100,000. What are you going to do with them? Are you going to allow them to starve, to put them on the rates? [HON. MEMBERS: "Deport them."] They have been allowed into this country. On what ground are you going to deport them? You cannot deport them merely because you turn them out of their employment. This really will not help the labour situation one iota. Those that you do succeed in turning out of their employment will get employment elsewhere and will probably cause some other Britisher to lose his work. The whole thing is misconceived; it is not workable. To
describe this as any attempt to carry out a pledge about the non-admission of undesirable aliens is really playing with the intelligence of the House.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: One has listened, as one always does, with profound respect and a great deal of mental curiosity to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But I have been asking myself this simple question—what is the Government's objection to this Clause? The right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, correct me if I wrongly state his views. I gather first of all that in his view the Clause is unworkable. One can dismiss that in a moment by saying that if the combined ingenuity of this House and of the officials of the Home Office cannot find simple machinery to work the Clause then indeed our intelligence has fallen to a low level. The next argument appeared to be this. There are so very few of these aliens only 300,000 altogether in 1918. The right hon. Gentleman made deductions from this total and left a balance of 200,000. If, under the operation of the Clause these 200,000 were thrown out of employment what, he asked, are we going to do with them? "Are they to starve," asked the Home Secretary, "Are they to be hungry and without clothing." The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to apprehend the feeling that exists on this subject in this country. Whatever hardships arise under the operations of this Clause have to be adjusted in the best way possible, but I have not the remotest solicitude as to what happens to those people who have brought a low standard of living into this country and who have handicapped the British workman more than any other cause, and I think everything should be done to expedite their return to their own country. "But," says the Home Secretary, they have been allowed to come here." So were the Germans allowed to come here, the Germans who are here today and who have been deported daily rider the orders of the right hon. Gentleman. They were allowed to come here, You may say that from the political point of view these are desirable people, but we say from the economic point of view and the social point of view they are undesirable. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who employs them?"] I can only say for myself I do not. Another observation of the right lion Gentleman which has been rather overworked and which was trotted out by the Member for Liverpool and
which the Home secretary gave us with a good deal of forensic power and dramatic gesture was that if we passed this Clause or a Clause of this kind we must expect reprisals to the extent of three to one against our own nationals in other countries. Ministers of the Crown should weigh their words when they speak. I want to know what justification the Home Secretary has for that statement. I want to know where you find ill-conditioned and ill-affected Britishers working to the extent of 50 per cent. as waiters in a foreign country or as hairdressers in a foreign country, and so I could go through, the whole gamut of the aliens with whom we are dealing here. There are no British men worth counting Ns ho arc in the position of the men against whom this Bill is directed.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: There are 650,000 British people who earn their living abroad and who are aliens there and whom you are going to handicap if you pass this Clause.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Where are they—name? I do not accept the figure. I venture to say there are not 600 British men working abroad whom the countries in which they work wish to get rid of. That is the test. They improve the standard of living there and have never been alienated from the people amongst whom they live. The hon. Member for Whitechapel has a right to speak on this subjet because in the proper Parliamentary sense he is not disinterested, because, although aliens have no votes they are a very busy and troublesome people. At a later stage of this Bill we are going to take steps to see that they never shall vote. That hon. Member rather jeered at the Clause because of its authorship, but there is a legal maxim that hard cases make bad laws. It may be that in Whitechapel there are many desirable industries which would be injured indirectly if there were not a large proportion of alien labour. That is why we have been rash and reckless enough to give the Home Secretary discretion to grant certificates in special cases. There is not a single danger within the purview of this Clause which cannot be remedied by a stroke of the pen of the Home Secretary. That being so, what is the objection. De minimus is a legel phrase known to the Home Secretary and we are told that this is a small thing, but behind it all there lurks this old-fashioned idea that you must not lay a finger on the sacrosanct shoulders of
any alien who cares to come here. The country expects at least this contribution towards the settlement of this subject. One would not be foolish enough to ask the Government to redeem its election pledges. That is out of date and the Archbishops in another place have given us Absolution from our election pledges. But do let us make some pretence at it, and let us by passing this tell the British workmen that you are not going to handicap him by having more than one in four aliens in the workshops except when it is in his own interest. We have been told of what happened in Committee, and we know what occurs on the Question "That the Clause stand part." I respond to the Appeal of the Home Secretary, and I for one can face even the aliens in my own Constituency, and say that I have done something to give reality to the pledges which were made.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Far be it from me to interfere in the more or less domestic differences of the Conservative party. At all periods in our history some people have been opposed to aliens, and have evinced the same spirit that we have been listening to to-night. Generally speaking, aliens are always hated by people of this country. Usually speaking, there has been a mob which has been opposed to them, but that mob has always had leaders in high places. The Flemings were persecuted and hunted and the Lombards were also hunted down by the London mob. Then it was the turn of the French Protestants. I think that the same feeling holds good on this subject to-day. You always have a mob of entirely uneducated people who will hunt down foreigners, and you always have in this House or in the other House, like Lord George Gordon, people who make use of the passions of the mob in order to get their own ends politically. But there is behind this Amendment a real party movement and a desire to show on the hustings and platforms what has been done. Members will come forward and will tell the people, "I voted against these—foreigners, and I voted to keep them out." How men who are English gentlemen can accept a view of politics that they are to take advantage of the lowest and meanest ideas of the mob in this country in order to cadge their votes by such a Clause as this, I cannot understand. We have heard hon. Members appealing to Members of
the Labour party and saying, "Do you not want more work for Englishmen, and can we not kick out the foreigners and find work for the men at home "We heard the same sort of thing in connection with the Tariff Reform movement and the same sort of people made the appeal. Although I only speak for a small section of the Labour party myself, we believe that the interest of the working classes everywhere are the same, and these gentlemen will find it difficult to spread a spirit of animosity and racial hatred amongst those people who realise that the brotherhood of man and the international spirit of the worker is not merely a phrase, but a reality. We know that the whole of this Bill is devised in order to satisfy the meanest political spirit of the age. if this Amendment were included in the Bill it would show what legislation would provide if it were left in the hands of "John Bull" and the hon. Member for Ealing, and would let people see that our proud old British traditions had been scrapped and thrown overboard, and that we had invented a new type of English gentleman, modelled on the London mob of 200 years ago.

Mr. BIGLAND: I desire to enter a protest against the line of argument which the Home Secretary used in his attempt to upset the real basic value of this Clause. I do not think he was at all justified in telling the House that we should have action taken by foreign Governments. Can anybody suppose for a moment that in France or any other country legislation which precluded more than 25 per cent. of Englishmen being employed in any one factory would have any effect whatever on British workmen. The matter is absurd. I know something by travel in foreign countries, and to think that there are any factories in any country where 50 per cent. of the employés are un-naturalised Englishmen in that country is, to my mind, absolutely absurd. The whole idea of retaliation by other countries if we pass this Clause is to my mind absurd. I would like to say one other thing, and that is that we must not forget that after this great war the upheaval in foreign countries, in Europe particularly, is so great that many of the people there may be wanting to come over here. We do not want them coming over here, and we want the employers in our factories to know that they cannot have more than 25 per cent. of aliens in their
employment. The very moment an employer has got his 25 per cent. he will not be encouraging his friends from the centre of Europe to come over here and find employment in his factory, and there will go forth a kind of knowledge that this percentage is the limit. I hope this House will pass this new Clause, because it will have the effect of preventing both desirable and undesirable aliens from coming into the country at all.

Mr. BILLING: If I may say so, I think that every Member who got the coupon at the last election is pledged to support this Amendment, and for this reason. The Prime Minister, in practically every public address, inferred that we wanted Britain for Britons. He said we wanted to make this country more fit for heroes to live in, and in many passionate addresses he gave us to understand that he wanted this country for the benefit of British workers and Britons generally. All that this Amendment means is that we shall not encourage alien labour in this country. I would like to have put it even stronger, because I am afraid that even this Amendment will allow through the net a great number of the most undesirable aliens, those who are gradually stamping out the one-man businesses in this country. The one-man businesses in this country have bred a fine class of small traders, and anything that will stamp that kind of man out is not beneficial to our national character generally, just as the introduction of aliens, and particularly the undesirable aliens, is not beneficial to our national character. The address that the Home Secretary gave us is so typical of that kind of mind that nearly brought this country to its knees that I should like personally to pay for a pamphlet to be published—at least, I will pay for a hundred thousand—containing a verbatim report of his speech for the benefit of the electors of this country. It is just that type of mind. As the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) suggested, there was not only loose thinking, but loose speaking, and there were generalities which we do not expect from Members of the Front Bench, however much we might expect them from Members on other benches. I have been accused of it myself.
When we hear Members representing Labour in this country standing up and appealing to the Government to bring more aliens in, or to do nothing to prevent it, I really do not think they are speaking
for the genuine British labourer. There is not enough work to go round at the present minute. There is plenty of work, but there is lack of organisation, and until we are thoroughly organised, particularly for that period, let us keep out that foreign labour, which is much more crafty and much more ingenious in its methods of getting work than the ordinary simpleminded British working-man. If you compare the mentality of the Asiatic with that of an Islander, you will find that one works much more slowly than the other and that is why they have got to windward of us so many times and why we watch them emigrate from the slums of Whitechapel to the sacred precincts of Park Lane so frequently—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Westminster!"]—and why there are Members here representing them now, it may be. I think I should not be fulfilling my duty in this House if I did not enter a protest now against the further importation of aliens into the labour market of England, especially in the small businesses in every town. They have practically ruined the small baker and closed up the British barber and a hundred and one other small businesses, not only in London but in every town. Personally, I am proud of being a Britisher. I prefer my country. I know it is an offence in the eyes of some Members on the Labour benches, but I prefer my country to any other, and I want to see it preserved, and I want to see it saved from the Asiatic. I have seen labour in other countries than my own, and there is no need for hon. Members speaking from the Labour benches to abuse all those who have seen fit to support this Clause. It is not an election catch, but even assuming that it is, we are presumably at election times making those promises which we think are likely to be most popular; and if they are most popular, they are most general; and if it is the sort of thing that you will dare to support from your own platform, you know it is because it is the will of the people, and if so, it is our duty to carry it out.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: After the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I feel compelled to vote against this new Clause, as the hon. Member has just delivered a speech which is simply naked anti-Semitism, and I have the greatest contempt for what I regard as the most cowardly thing—namely, Jew-baiting and anti-Semitism. The hon. Member for South Hackney asked why
these people do not go to their own country. Remember that these people have been driven out of the ghettoes in Russia and Poland as the result of religious persecution, and that the sole effect of this Clause in operation will be religious persecution, because it will not hit your big factory at all. That can easily be accommodated. But it is the small Jewish man in the East End, who employs a few Jews, who will in future have to bring in so many Christians to work with the Jews, and they will not work well together. I am certain that, having once admitted these people—there is something to be said for keeping them out, perhaps—but when they are admitted are you now going to say to these Jews in the East End: "You shall not employ more than one-fourth Jews. You have got to employ three Britishers to every Jew you employ"? It is clear from the speeches we have listened to that this Clause is not directed against the Germans or the enemy aliens, but simply and solely against the wandering tribes who have been driven from country to country and persecuted for the last 1800 years.

Mr. JOHN JONES: Supporters of this Clause have issued the challenge that the Labour Members are supporting the introduction of undesirable aliens. I represent an East London constituency, and I am very pleased to find that some of those who are supporting this proposition have suddenly become converted to the necessity of keeping the aliens out. I have had some experience of disputes in the East End of London, when boat-loads of Polish Jews have been brought over to work in factories in my Constituency, and they have been brought over by some of the supporters of the proposition now before the House. Any stick is good enough to beat a Labour man with, and any stunt is good enough to win an election with. Whether it is considered good form or not, I will express the opinion of the ordinary worker in regard to this problem as it appeals to him. It says, in effect, that 25 per cent. of those employed in any industry can be aliens. Why limit it to 25 per cent.? Take a sugar factory, or a chemical factory, or any of those industrial establishments on the Thames-side, and what will you find? You will find that the aliens mainly were
that class of labour which was the lowest paid and the hardest worked, and that they were continually being recruited by the employers in that particular line of business for the purpose of reducing the standard of wages. I am not blaming the employer for buying his labour in the cheapest market. He has a perfect right to do so as a business man, but we as trade unionists object to him pretending to be virtuous for political purposes and being a criminal for economic purposes. We have heard arguments advanced here by some Gentlemen who have been denouncing the aliens who ought to have been more careful in choosing their wives. If it is not good enough for a British working man to work side by side with a foreign workman, it is not good enough for an English statesman to sleep side by side with a foreign woman.
The hon. Member for South Hackney is prepared to face the aliens in his own constituency on this question. I am prepared to face the aliens or any other people in any constituency on the principle on which we have fought the War. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to repeat to-night the sentiments which they have expressed during the five years that the War was in progress. What did we stand for? What did I go on to platforms for? I went on to platforms to unite the democracies of Europe against autocracy, to beat Prussianism, to destroy this kind of legislation, which simply means turning the peoples of every country against each other. That is what I fought for and that is what every Labour man believed he was doing when he took up the cudgels in connection with the late War. Now we are being told that if we are not careful our jobs are going to be taken from us by the aliens. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear !"] Your job will never be sacrificed, because under present conditions you do not do anything!I want to realise what a terrible enemy we have got to face in the possible 300,000 Polish or Russian Jews who may be waiting for embarkation at some foreign port for the purpose of sweeping down upon us to get our jobs. We and the boys of the bull dog breed who stood between Germanism in the highest moment of its pride—the 14,000,000 of them, workers and soldiers, who kept Germany at bay—are going to be defeated in the industrial market by 200,000 or 300,000 German or Polish Jews. What patriots we have got!
Why, they are hardly strong enough to throw themselves on the parish. I want to say that labour in this country is not afraid of the competition. Let us have the legislation we desire. Let us see that hours of labour are regulated by Statute, and that no employer is allowed to take advantage of workers struggling for employment, and then it will be open to the employer to show that his patriotism is deeper and broader than his breeches pocket. I thank hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen for their desire to see labour well protected. How long have they been so anxious? If any strike in which we have taken part in the East End of London, where men were working 72, 82, and 84 hours a week, for wages less than 25s. a week, previous to 1914, did we ever see these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen amongst us to organise workers to secure better conditions of labour? It is different when it comes to a political question, and there is a chance of saying to the men in the East End, "Your low wages are due to the foreigner." It is not true. In the principal trade in which foreigners are engaged, the Jewish tailors introduced the trade, and the trade is a protection.
I venture to suggest that, so far as we are concerned, there is, in my opinion, an attempt to create a feeling in one or two parts of the United Kingdom which the great body of organised workers in this country will not accept. The real enemy of the working man is not the alien workman, and not the British employer as such,

but the real enemies we have to fight are those who want to take advantage of the necessities of the workers to get the cheapest possible labour at the lowest possible price. Therefore, we are against this kind of legislation. We want the workers to realise, and the House to realise, that Clauses of this character are not really intended to solve the problem. If you are going to allow 25 per cent. in a factory where 1,000 men are employed, you are going to have 250 aliens. There are not 250 aliens in the whole district from which I come, so that one particular employer, if he likes, will be allowed to employ 250 extra aliens. If we are to begin with aliens, I hope we shall begin at the top, and have an inquiry into the nationality of a large number of Members of this House, and if they go back far enough, probably they will find that their fathers had no reason to be proud of the country from which they came. Anyhow, so far as Labour is concerned, we are against this kind of legislation, and we protest against this Clause because it is playing to the gallery politically. Consequently, in so far as the Trade Union Congress is concerned, and the Labour Party Congress is concerned, we are against this kind of legislation. We want to see a new world for democracy, and all the nations of the world linked together, without any differentiation of the people of different nationalities.

Question put, "That the Clause tie read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 205.

Division No. 109.]
AYES.
[6.19 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Jephcott, A. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dockrell, Sir M.
Johnson, L. S.


Sanbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Bell, Lt.-Col. W C. H. (Devizes)
Foxcroft, Captain C.
King, Commander Douglas


Bigland, Alfred
Glyn, Major R.
Knights, Captain H.


Billing, Noel Pemberton
Goff, Sir R. Park
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)


Bird, Alfred
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Lloyd, George Butler


Blair, Major Reginald
Greene, Lt.-Col. w. (Hackney, N.)
Lorden, John William


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Grew, Harry
Lort-Willlams, J.


Brackenbury, Captain H. L.
Gretton, Colonel John
Lowe, Sir F. W.


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Griggs, Sir Peter
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford!


Bruton, Sir J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macmaster, Donald


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Guinness, Capt. Hon. (Southend)
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Gwynne, R. S.
Maddocks, Henry


campbell, J. G. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S)


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hall, R.-Adml. Sir W. R. (Lpl, W. Dby)
Manville, Edward


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hanna, G. B.
Matthews, David


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Mitchell, William Lane-


Casey, T. W.
Hickman, Brig-General Thomas E.
Moore, Ma).-Gen. Sir Newton J.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.
Morden, Colonel H Grant


Cobh, Sir Cyril
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Hood, Joseph
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Murchison, C. K


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Houston, Robert Paterson
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)


Cowan, sir H. (Aberdeen and Kine.)
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Nall, Major Joseph
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Townley, Maximilian G.


Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)
Remer, J. B.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Nichell, Com. Sir Edward
Remnant, Colonel Sir James
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Nield, Sir Herbert
Rogers, Sir Hallowell
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson


Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.
Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Williams, Lt.-Col. C. (Tavistock)


Oman, C. W. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Pearce, Sir William
Scott. Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Stanton, Charles Butt
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Perkins, Walter Frank
Stewart, Gershom
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Perring, William George
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.
Winterton, Major Earl


Pickering, Cal. Emil W.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)



Preston, W. R.
Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Tickler, Thomas George
E. Wild and Mr. Bottomley,


Ramsden, G. T.




NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Ormsoy-Gore, Hon. William


Archdale, Edward M.
Gloos, Colonel George Abraham
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Palmer, Brig.-General G. (Westbury)


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Parker, James


Baird, John Lawrence
Gould, J. C.
Parkinson, Alpert L. (Blackpool)


Baldwin, Stanley
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)
Greig, Colonel James William
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Pratt, John William


Barnston, Major H.
Grundy, T. W.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Barrand, A. R.
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Purchase, H. G.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughbord)
Raeburn, Sir William


Betneil, Sir John Henry
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Rankin, Capt. James S.


Blades, Sir George R.
Hail, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hallas, E.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Roes, Captain J. Tudor.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, V.
Reid, D. D.


Breese, Major C. E.
Hayward, Major Evan
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Briant, F.
Henderson. Arthur.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Briggs, Harold
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall).


Britton, G. B.
Hinds, John
Robertson, J


Bull, Rt. Han. Sir William James
Hirst, G. H.
Rodger, A. K.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Hogge, J. M.
Rose, Frank H.


Cairns, John
Hopkinson, Austin (Moseley)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Cape, Tom
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Rowlands, James


Carr, W. T.
Hurst, Major G. B.
Royce, William Stapleton


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Illingworth, Ht. Hon. Albert H.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Irving, Dan
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Jodrell, N. P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W.)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Seeger, Sir William


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Kellaway, Frederick George
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Kidd, James
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.).


Colfax, Major W. P.
Kiley, James Daniel
Simm, Colonel M. T.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knight, Capt. E. A.
Sltch, C. H.


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Spencer, George A.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Spoor, B. G


Craik, Rt Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Ashton)


Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Lister, Sir R Ashton
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lonsdale, James R.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Sturrock, J. Leng


Dawes, J. H.
Lynn, R. J.
Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.


Duncannon, Viscount
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Sutherland, Sir William


Edge, Captain William
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Swan, J. E. C.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Eyres-Mansell. Com.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Falcon, Captain M.
Melialieu. Frederick William
Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Mason, Robert
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Malson, Major John Elsdale
Thorpe, J. H.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Waddington, R.


Finney, Samuel
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Wallace, J.


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Morris, Richard
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Forrest, W.
Mosley, Oswald
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Fraser. Major Sir Keith
Neal, Arthur
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Galbraith, Samuel
Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Newbould, A. E.
Whitle, Sir William




Wignall, James
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Young, Lt.-Cam. E. H. (Norwich)


Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)
Winfrey, Sir Richard
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)
Younger, Sir George


Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)
Woolcock, W. J. U.



Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)
Worsfold, T. Cate
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Talbot and Captain Guest.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Fishing Certificates.)

No alien shall be granted a certificate entitling him to act as skipper or second hand of a British fishing vessel.—[Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I might point out that in the Bill itself there is a Clause preventing the employment of anyone but a British subject as master, chief engineer, or first officer of a British merchant vessel. This Amendment of mine is to apply the same thing in the case of fishing vessels. For the information of hon. Members who may not be familiar with the fishing industry I would point out that the skipper is, of course, the master of the boat, while the second hand is a misleading title, for he is second in command, and is on the same basis as the first officer or the chief engineer of a merchant vessel. The reason for moving this Amendment is twofold. The first reason is that the skipper, or second band, of a British fishing vessel has to have an intimate knowledge of the configuration of the coasts, the sand banks and currents, and the tidal features around these islands, and it will be obvious to the House that such a man would be a very valuable person to the enemy if hostile to us in the case of war. He would be in the position of a sort of super-pilot. In fact he might be more dangerous to us than a pilot, for whereas a pilot has only knowledge of one estuary or port or harbour, the skipper of a fishing vessel has a very wide knowledge of our seas and coasts.
The second reason is that these men are, I suppose, the most valuable reserves we can have for our Navy. They Lave been invaluable in the recent War as minesweepers. Without their aid we could not have kept our channels clear for the merchant shipping. They have been very valuable in connection with the submarine warfare owing to their special knowledge of the sea and coasts. Every foreigner employed in these responsible capacities in a British steam trawler is one highly-trained seaman less as a reserve for our Navy. As in the future we shall undoubtedly not be able to keep up so great a Navy we shall not have the need we had
at the outbreak of the War. It is the more essential, therefore, that the reserves for the Navy should be a strong body. That reason, I think, will appeal to hon. Members. The Clause which I propose has strong support from the men's organisations. I have letters from the Association, of Merchant Service Officers and from the-Mercantile Marine Trawlers' Association which are the nautical trade unions of the fishermen. They feel very strongly indeed, on the matter. They feel that foreigners should not be in British trawlers, and they support this Clause unanimously. They ask me to point out, in case the Government brings in the plea that many foreigners at present in command of British trawlers have served in the War, that there might be made a loophole too, wide; for many of these men were paid a shilling per day and allowed to use uniform simply to safeguard them in case of capture. They went on fishing and earned a good deal of money by trawling, and they were not in any sense of the word assisting the Forces of the Crown. This should be borne in mind in case the Home Secretary may oppose a Clause of this kind.

Major ENTWISTLE: I beg to second the Motion.
Not many words are necessary to be added; the Amendment would appear to me to be such a reasonable one. The feeling in this matter is very strong on the part of those who have been mentioned. I do not know what the objections are that can be raised to the Amendment. As regards the Trawler Owners' Federation in thy own Constituency, I am informed that they have no objection to the proposed Clause. The owners thus are apparently in favour of it, and the seamen too. If these two are in agreement it seems to me there should be no difficulty in securing the approval of the Government to the Amendment. It is important to-know that one of the main instruments with which we have been able to deal with the submarine menace in this War has been our trawlers, and the enormous importance of the skippers on our trawlers being Britishers must strike everyone who for a moment considers the thing. For the sake of ensuring the safety of this country against the submarine peril, and
so that our harbours should not be subject to the intimate knowledge of foreigners, it is to me an elementary precaution that we should safeguard such a vital feature.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in this new Clause at this juncture of the Bill. It is proposed on Clause 5, dealing with merchant shipping, to deal with fishing vessels too, and when we come to that Clause hon. Members and myself are putting Amendments down to extend the purview of it. I have Amendments which on behalf of the Government I am going to ask the House to accept. The Government proposals will apply to fishing vessels as to ordinary merchant vessels—that is to say, the conditions will apply merely to the master or the skipper. There must be some provision to except those who may be aliens, who have fought for us, and have been engaged in mine-sweeping and other similar dangerous work during the War. What I would ask my hon. Friend opposite is not to persist in this Amendment at the present moment, but to raise the whole question when we come to deal with the Amendments to be raised on Clause 5.

Sir H. NIELD: I note with amazement the statement that the Government at a later stage propose to move Amendments. Why in the name of Parliamentary procedure have we not been given the opportunity to see these Amendments on the Order Paper? We have pressed again and again in this matter. This Bill left Committee on 17th July. Some 198 of us memorialised the Prime Minister to have this Bill brought on early in the Session, in order that we might have it sent to another place in time to be properly discussed. In answer to that the Bill was put down as the first business to-day. The Government have had ample time between 17th July and now to formulate their Amendments. They promised us two new Clauses. We have not been shown one of them; in fact, we have been treated as the Government have been in the habit of treating us, as subservient followers who will follow anywhere where they lead. That is producing a spirit of dangerous unrest in this party of Coalitionists, and I think I am safe in saying that a large number of us will no longer permit the Government to treat us as if we were mere cyphers. A hundred
and thirty of us have just recorded our vote against the Government. We will vote against the Government every time on this Bill, and in favour of getting the Bill made what it ought to be—a measure of protection for the British. The idea of the Government coming down to the House and saying, "We are going to move Amendments presently—we have got sheaves of Amendments"—I believe that was the language—all of which have been carefully concealed throughout the whole of the Recess!If the Amendments could not, according to the Standing Orders, be placed upon the Table of the House because they were not given notice of in view of the House not sitting, these Amendments could at least have been courteously communicated to those of us who, the right hon. Gentleman knows, worked in Committee earnestly to try to amend the Bill. Surely it would have been the merest act of courtesy to have said to us, "You shall have a copy of the Amendments," or, at any rate, "Our Amendments are in this direction or the other." We have been kept absolutely in the dark!I believe I am entitled to say that up to last night the Government had not made up its mind as to what it was going to do. What a condition of things for a Government supported by so large a majority, elected very largely to pursue this very legislation!I protest as strongly as I possibly can do against the way the Government treat their followers, and I warn them, humble Member though I am, that it will involve them in many grave difficulties if they do not realise that we have some powers of self-determination in the way we shall vote in the Lobby.

Sir E. CARSON: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, in regard to these Amendments of which he has talked, it is intended that they should be proceeded with to-day if we come to the Clause? This Bill was looked forward to by the great bulk of this House, and I think by the country, as one promised over and over again during the War and at the termination of the War. I can hardly imagine that the proposals of my right hon. Friend have been in the slightest degree considered. As I understand it, they never were before the Committee upstairs, yet he proposes to ask the House to vote upon them and to carry them this evening. Anything more inconvenient I cannot possibly imagine. Why we have not been able to see the Amend-
ments I do not know. It may be there is some technical difficulty in putting them upon the Order Paper by reason of the Adjournment of the House, but there need have been no difficulty in circulating them if the Government wanted to circulate them. For my own part, I hope the House will not submit without protest to treatment of this kind. It is impossible to understand the meaning of Amendments, and to what extent they carry us, without seeing them upon the Paper. I have been very long in this House, and I have tried over and over again to follow Amendments—it has been part of my business to make draft Amendments—but nothing can be more unsatisfactory than springing a series of Amendments upon the House without giving time to see how far they enlarge, cut down, or modify the particular Section of the Bill. I earnestly hope that, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will at once produce these Amendments, and not proceed to the Clause on which they come until the House has had an opportunity of considering the effect of them.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am much indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) for having expressed my views entirely upon this very important question, and if I had not regarded it as being so important I should not have added another word. We are at the commencement of the Autumn Session, and this is a matter of considerable importance, and we have now the first opportunity of expressing our view as to whether the House is going to regain mastery over its Procedure, or whether we are going to continue to submit to war conditions. If my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws his Amendment, of course it can be dealt with on Clause 5, but the House ought to know what these promised Amendments are, more particularly in view of the new Rules of Procedure. The mass of hon. Members know nothing whatever as regards what happens upstairs, and this is the first opportunity the House has had of understanding what the views of the Government are, and the views of those who discuss these matters upstairs. It is not treating the House fairly, and I hope the Government will take notice that the House of Commons intends to assert itself and recover its old command over the Procedure of the House.

Sir C. CORY: I have received a strong request from the fishermen in my Con-
stituency to support this proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept it as an Amendment to Clause 5 I have nothing more to say, but I wish to put forward the strong felling of my Constituents in favour of this new Clause.

Colonel GRETTON: Those who are supporting this Clause are in this difficulty. The Government ask the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to withdraw his proposal in order that it may be taken on a later proposal, which I understand the Government are going to put down as an Amendment to Clause 5. What are we to discuss? The Government have not yet disclosed their Amendment. I think a protest should be made against the way the House is being treated in regard to Government Amendments to this Bill. During the Committee stage certain Amendments were passed against the Government and apparently the Government are now trying to get their own way. I think the House ought to form its own judgment, and we ought to have before us what the Government propose on Clause 5. On some of the other Clauses pledges have been given to put down now proposals, and those Amendments and new Clauses should be on the Paper. I suggest that when we come to any of the proposals of the Government which are not on the Paper the House should refuse to proceed, and we should insist on having the whole matter before us before we proceed further. With regard to the suggestion that this Clause should be withdrawn, that is a matter of procedure, and it will probably be more convenient to the House, but I hope we shall not consent to Clause 5 being whittled away by Amendments which are still in the pocket of the Minister.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to meet the convenience of the House, with regard to manuscript Amendments being brought forward on an important matter of this kind because it is absolutely impossible for hon. Members to follow them. It does not require many words to alter the whole sense of a Clause. It cannot be such a vital matter that the Report stage should be completed to-day. The Government can put their Amendments on the Paper to-night and they will appear to-morrow, and if my right hon. Friend would agree to the adjournment of this debate in order that we might have an opportunity of considering his proposals then we might go on with the measure to-morrow, and I am
sure the general consensus of opinion of the House would be that that is the only fair way in which we should be treated. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this suggestion.

Mr. SHORTT: I must apologise for not having been able to bring these Amendments after the completion of the Committee stage, and I have not had time to decide upon the Amendments before. It was quite impossible for me to do so on account of the Rules of the House during the recess, and therefore it was not my fault that they were not put down on the Paper. The other complaint is that I did not choose a certain number of hon. Members and supply them with private information in regard to these Amendments, which I confess did not occur to me, or I should have been extremely glad to have done so. With regard to the request that hon. Members should see those Amendments, that is essential. It is clear that we cannot finish the Report stage to-night, and the first Amendment I should have to propose would be to Clause 4. I wish to show the House that it does not matter much whether they see the Amendments or not to-night because we are accepting the Clause as it stands subject to this, that we have an agreement with France embodied in the Statute Act of 1913, and therefore we simply propose to put into the Clause words safeguarding the provisions of the Act of 1913, and subject to that, Clause 4 Would stand as it is.
Then comes Clause 5, which I agree is a, more serious matter, and after having gone as carefully into it as we could our intention is to move to eliminate the words "chief officer" and "chief engineer," and to oppose my hon. Friend opposite. So far as the Government is concerned with what is already on the Paper, we propose to go through' the new Clauses and the Amendments to Clause 4, which we could do without any inconvenience to the House, and hon. Members will have an opportunity to-morrow of seeing what our Amendments are, and then, of course, if more time is necessary the question can be raised, and we shall do our best to meet the general wish of the House. I agree that the difficulty is really my own fault, but I have not been able to find time to go into this matter. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but I really think we may now proceed up to Clause 4 without any inconvenience.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I am anxious to see this Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible, but I cannot agree with the views which have been expressed by the Home Secretary. I will tell the House what appears to me to be the difficulty. If hon. Members will look down the Paper they will see a very important new Clause standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) and a number of other hon. Members as well as myself, the object of which is to prevent enemy aliens from holding land in this country, and from holding shares in British ships and British key industries. When I moved this proposal in Committee the Home Secretary said that he sympathised with the Clause and that it would require very careful consideration, and he promised to bring up a new Clause on Report. We are asking where the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman contemplates is to be found, and we want to know whether it will be of any use. I think the question whether enemy aliens shall hold land in this country is an extremely important one—

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not under discussion now, and the point will be reached in a Clause later on the Paper.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I only want to point cut the grave difficulty of proceeding with this matter in view of the fact that the Clause is not on the Paper.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look through the list of new Clauses and say which of them the Government have no objection to, and then we might adjourn until to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we must take the usual course, because to have a discussion on a number of Clauses at the same time would not be convenient.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I ask leave to withdraw my Motion on the understanding that the question will come up again on Clause 5.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Conditions.)

Leave shall not be given to an alien to land in the United Kingdom unless he complies with the following conditions, that is to say:

(a) He is in a position to support himself and his dependants in a reasonable condition of comfort;
(b) He is not a lunatic, idiot, or mentally deficient;
101
(c) He is not unfit from a moral, social, or educational standpoint to be a useful and proper inhabitant of this country;
(d) He is not the subject of a certificate given to the immigration officer by a medical inspector that for medical reasons it is undesirable that the alien should be permitted to land;
(e) He has not been sentenced in a foreign country for any extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Act, 1870;
(f) He is not the subject of a deportation Order in force under the Aliens Restrictions Acts, 1914 and 1919, or any Order in Council thereunder, or of an expulsion Order under the Aliens Act, 1905;
(g) He has not been prohibited from landing by the Secretary of State;
(h) He fulfils such other requirements as may be prescribed by any general or special instructions of the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Hopkins.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
It seems to me extremely desirable to insert a proposal of this kind in the Bill, because there is no Clause which deals with the admission of undesirable aliens into this country. As to the desirability of keeping these undesirables out of the country there is no difference of opinion, but the Home Secretary thinks it would be better done by Order in Council, whereas I submit it would be better done by legislation in this House. Practically I have taken the wording of my new Clause from the draft Order in Council which it is proposed to issue if this Bill goes through, and therefore my proposal is in the Government's own wording, and it is the sort of restriction they desire to impose. The only difference I have made in the wording as set forth in the proposed Orders in Council is that the intending immigrant should not only be in a position to support himself, but also his dependants if he brings any with him. Another alteration I have made is that an immigrant presenting himself for admission to this country should not be an unfit person from a moral, social, or educational standpoint. I do not know that I need to go through the rest of the debarring proposals, because there is no difference between us and the Government on those points. I cannot imagine that any number of arguments or any long speeches are required to recommend this Clause to the House, because it is only a question whether you keep the undesirable alien out by an Act of Parliament or whether you leave it to be done by an Order in
Council at the will of the Home Secretary for the time being. There can be no. possible doubt both from the point of health and morality that it is desirable to keep out the undesirable alien.
This Clause will not prevent anybody from coming into this country who conceivably may be a good or useful citizen from an industrial or any other point of view. It does not deal with the question of enemy aliens as enemy aliens. Personally, I sympathise with those who are in favour of keeping them all out, but that is not the question in this Clause. This is merely a question of keeping out the admittedly undesirable alien, and to-day there are more reasons than ever for keeping out this undesirable element, because every civilised country all over the world is to-day strengthening its legislation in this direction. Up to comparatively a few years ago many of the most undesirable aliens bred in European society went out to South America, but now I believe every country in South America has passed a law keeping these undesirables out, and, where they are not naturalised, turning them out. In a South American paper a few weeks ago I read a discussion as to where the undesirables were to go if they were turned out, and the paper pointed out that the only civilised country in the world to which these undesirables could go was this country. I have no desire to see them come here, and I do not think, if this Clause were put into the Bill, that it would excite any hostility or jealousy of any sort on the part of any other country, because every foreign country has similar legislation, though much more strict and much more strictly applied. The United States and every one of our own Dominions have stiffened their legislation, and it is evident, if we are the only country who do not protect ourselves, that we shall run an increasing risk of getting this undesirable element. I do not know whether the Government are going to accept this Clause or not. If the only difficulty in their way is the little difference in the wording of the Clause that I propose and the wording of the draft Order in Council, I certainly shall not stand on my particular wording, although I think it somewhat strengthens the Clause. I do, however, very earnestly press upon the House that this restriction upon the immigration of undesirable aliens should be enacted by legislation by this House and should not be left to the mercy of the Department.

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Motion, and, in doing so, I wish to address myself more particularly to the objections that were raised to the Clause by the Home Secretary in Committee. The loose wording of the Clause—"Moral, social, or educational"—was really the fundamental reason which he gave for refusing to accept it. We are not aware whether he is himself prepared to propose the necessary Amendments to attain the object which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Hopkins) and myself have in mind, but, if he is prepared to do so, and will say so now, I will content myself by merely seconding. If not, then I must state further the reasons that I have in mind for doing so. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Clause and propose Amendments?

Mr. SHORTT: indicated dissent.

Mr. SUGDEN: Then I shall endeavour to show that unless this Clause is included in the Bill the whole of the labour situation in this country will become chaotic. We have had our labour difficulties, and we have had our differences as to the position and place that labour should occupy in relative juxtaposition one and the other in the nation, but there is this to be said about British labour, that during the time of our late great trouble there was no bloodshed in this country. I put that down to a considerable extent to the fact that aliens have been kept out of our trade unions. But they are now coming in, and those who come from the textile districts know that great textile producing countries like Austria will in due course deport many to our shores, in fact, the parliamentary leaders in Austria have desired permission so to do. At present there is some unemployment amongst the minders in the cotton spinning section of the industry. In the constituency which I represent there was in one week three times the number unemployed in one section compared with 1913, and from Austria there may come six times that number in this trade to flood our shores unless this special Clause is inserted. I do, therefore, suggest that the Clause is most important. There is also the moral consideration. It has been my honour to sit upon a Committee dealing with defective children, and it is common knowledge that it is very mainly the children of aliens and cross-breeds who become the special care and consideration of the local authority in this
country. It is, therefore, vital and essential that this Clause should be included in the Bill. It may be suggested that the medical officers and inspectors at the ports are able to deal with this matter, but I suggest that these mysterious oriental diseases that obtain in our great seaport towns are the result of the admission of undesirable aliens in the first stage of the disease. Further, some arrive with disease in its early stages, which only mature months after admittance into the country. Those of us who were compelled to be in the hospitals in London during the air raids know that the people who were to be found in the tubes seeking shelter were the undesirable aliens, and those who were on night duty know the tremendous menace that they were. I therefore plead with the Home Secretary to accept this Clause in its entirety, and I think I may say, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras as well as on my own behalf, that if certain parts the wording is not acceptable and the right lion. Gentleman is prepared to suggest another form of words, we are quite willing to meet him, but we are not prepared to leave it to the caprice of any Home Secretary, when we think that it should be on the Statute Book in its entirety as we have proposed it here.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I should like to support this Clause. I do so because I have had considerable experience with regard to the aliens in this country and because I know that for the last thirty years we have had coming over here aliens who are unable to support themselves and who have been a burden to the State. Many boards of guardians in their reports have suggested from time to time that our legislation in regard to aliens should be strengthened. I regret to say that the last Act was not strong enough to keep out these indigent aliens. That was not the fault of the party to which 1 belong. I will not say which party was to blame, but it certainly was not the Conservative or Unionist party. There is no doubt whatever that had that Act been strengthened as it should have been we should now be in a very different position, and I certainly hope that the Home Secretary will see his way, if not to accept the wording of this Clause, at any rate to introduce some Clause having the same effect. I would emphasise what the Mover of the Clause has said, that in all the Dominions you
will find safeguards of this kind, not by any Order in Council, but by the legislation itself. I have had a great deal to do with emigration, and I know the difficulties that are placed in the way of persons desiring to emigrate from this country to the Dominions. For instance, no person who is unable to support himself or who is likely to become a charge upon the State can possibly be admitted to Canada. If that is so, and it is so, why on earth should we allow an alien to be admitted to this country? It is the same in the United States of America. They have recently introduced legislation which says that no person coming from this or. any other country who cannot support himself or herself shall be allowed to enter the United States. Surely if that is so, and it is so, it is our duty to pass similar legislation and to refuse to aliens who are unable to support themselves or their dependants admission into this country. I myself drew up a report for the House of Lords some twenty years ago, when I went to the various centres where the aliens live. I visited Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, and the East End of London, and I know very well that there were hundreds of aliens there who should never have been admitted to this country.
I do not want to enlarge upon the morality of the question, but it is a very important issue. I should, however, like to say a word from the educational standpoint, because these people could hardly speak the English language. We do not want people in this country who are unable to talk English, and yet I found that was the case with a very large number of aliens whom I came across in the course of my inquiries. Then, with regard to lunacy. There again an examination of the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners shows what a large number of aliens we have had in our lunatic asylums. I cannot understand why the taxpayers of this country should pay for them. I do impress upon the Home Secretary that the time has come when in this matter we should not be dependent on Orders in Council, but that we should have placed in an Act of Parliament powers which will have the effect of securing the safeguards aimed at by the Mover and Seconder of this Clause.

Major HURST: I wish strongly to oppose this Clause, not because I believe for a moment in any inrush of alien immi-
grants. Nobody desires that. But I do believe that this Clause in its present form would be absolutely disastrous to British industry. Let its call the attention of the House to its actual language. In the first place, it will apply to any alien, whether friendly or enemy. It will apply to any alien, whether he be a customer or a client. The prohibition is with regard to landing in this country. In other words, any alien, wherever he comes from and whatever his object in coming to England may be, will not be permitted to land on these shores unless lie is able to satisfy the authorities under the various headings set forth in the Clause. That is an absolutely ridiculous proposition. The welfare of this country at the present time depends upon the reconstruction of our export trade. That is vital. How can we rebuild our export trade unless we resume our connections with foreign countries and unless we allow commercial travellers to land on these shores from foreign countries in order that they may examine British markets and buy British goods? After all, the whole welfare of the trade of the North of England depends on the coining of these aliens into this country. What does it matter for a moment whether a man who comes from China and buys Lancashire goods keeps his dependants in reasonable conditions? What matters for a moment what is the moral character of a man who comes from the Argentine to buy our goods? It is absolutely absurd. How are you going to treat a Mahomedan who has several wives and whose conduct from an English point of view is morally objectionable? He will be an alien if he comes from an alien country, from Turkey, or from Arabia. But merely because his moral standard does not conform to our own he is only to be allowed to land under these very drastic conditions. What matters the social position of an alien who comes to buy our goods? Are we going to examine him as to his table manners? It is absurd. And with regard to education, the hon. Member opposite said that some aliens who came to this country hardly speak English. What does that matter if they come and buy English goods? The idea that our trade is going to be harassed by imposing these conditions on people who come here to help us revive our trade surely is one which does not call for serious consideration.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I said nothing whatever about people coming to this country to buy goods. I spoke of the indigent people who come here and live upon the rates.

Major HURST: The Clause is solely directed against aliens landing in the United Kingdom, and there are no words in it about its applying only to indigent aliens. It is proposed that these conditions shall be imposed upon all foreigners wherever they come from and whatever their object. During the -War there was very naturally a proper spirit of nationality fostered not only in England, but in every other country. That feeling by itself is wholly admirable. But when you come to legislation of the type here suggested it amounts simply to tire principle of nationality run mad. If carried out in the form in which it has been advocated by the hon. Member who moved the Clause, it would simply mean placing a Chinese wall round England to the immense detriment of English trade and of our relations with the outer world. That is a practical and material point for reasonable men to consider. It has been said that this is not a proper attitude for Conservatives, but I believe it is an attitude which appeals to the people of Lancashire. I feel certain that I can speak for many people there, and for a very large proportion of those who are interested in the staple trade of Lancashire. Looking at it from the point of view of ideals, after all, it seems to me that there is very little that is idealistic in the idea of isolating ourselves from trade and communication with other countries, and putting a great barrier between us and the comity of nations. It is using the true spirit of nationality for nothing more than a political stunt. A great many people believe this sort of thing because they have seen it in "John Bull,'' and therefore think it is so. But I prefer to take the principles by which we are going to judge these questions of national policy and national trade from a better source than that. I am not defending indiscriminate alien immigration. Speaking as one who can himself trace descent very remotely from an alien ancestry, it seems to me it has always been the glory of England to open her doors to all corners from every country who may be fit for British citizenship, and rather than pursue the stunt which is embodied in this Amendment, I would prefer to recall to the recollection of the House
the words of Burke that magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom, and a great Empire and little minds go ill together.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the hideous and selfish speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member put before the House a position at which I believe Lancashire will be very angry to-morrow morning when it reads his speech. It does not matter how foul, how horrible, how immoral, how criminal an alien may be, if he only comes to buy Lancashire goods, let him come into this country. I am sure that that is not the view of Lancashire. My hon. Friend gave his own case away in the last few sentences of his speech when he said that the country of England had always admitted aliens who would make good citizens. They should be fit to make good citizens. But he says let any man come in. He may be a lunatic, but if he will buy Lancashire cotton, let him come. Any man, whether or not he is in a position to support himself and his dependants, if he will only buy Lancashire goods shall be allowed to come in. No matter what his moral or social position may be—he may have been convicted in his own country of an extraditable offence, he may be a murderer, a robber, or anything else, but let him come in if only he will buy Lancashire cotton. He may have been deported by the Home Secretary. Never mind, if he comes with orders or cash in his pocket let him land, although he may have previously been turned out of this country once, twice, or even thrice. I am sorry for the sake of Lancashire that any hon. Member should say such things.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope that this proposed Clause will not be pressed. If the House will only recollect what exactly the position is I think hon. Members will not desire to pass the Clause. The argument as to whether aliens—undesirable aliens—ought or ought not to be admitted, whether any of these provisions ought to be the law of the land or not, is quite irrelevant. That is not the issue which this Clause raises at all. These things are in fact the law to-day. They are law by virtue of an Order in Council which was signed on the 18th August. They are the ordinary law of the land. There is no dispute about their desirability. There is no dispute whatever about it being necessary
to have such provisions. Therefore, the whole argument as to the desirability of these things is outside the mark. The question is, Are we going to pin these things down to-day in a Statute, instead of leaving them in a form in which they can be improved at any moment? When this Aliens Bill was in Committee it was proposed to continue the powers which had existed with regard to aliens for a period of years—two years in fact—and during that period of two years Orders in Council were to be made; at the end of the time the whole matter was to be reconsidered in the light of the increased knowledge and experience which we should have gained by then, and more satisfactory provisions would then be formulated and submitted to the House of Commons. If I remember rightly, at' the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), the period of two years was reduced to one.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In order to save the Government from defeat in the Lobby.

Mr. SHORTT: I am only too glad that that shall appear in next week's "John Bull," so that people will know who are the supporters of the Government. Today there is power for twelve months to continue the Orders in Council, and an Order in Council was in fact signed on the 18th August. At the end of the year the whole subject will be brought up again, and in the light of the further experience we shall then have gained opportunity will be taken to deal with these matters in an Act of Parliament. We are to-day in an experimental stage. May I mention one fact? The Order in Council which exists to-day is not quite the same Order in Council the draft of which was before the members of the Committee. Between that stage and the 18th August it was found necessary to put in another provision, namely, that no alien who was desirous of offering his services to an employer in the United Kingdom should be allowed to land unless he could produce in writing the permit issued to the employer by the Minister of Labour. We thought at the time that the draft Order in Council would meet all the necessities of the case. Yet within a month we discovered the necessity for further powers, and that further power is actually in the Order in Council. As time goes on it is not unreasonable to suppose we shall find other additions necessary. The House has distinctly the power to proceed by Order
in Council for twelve months. The reason for that is that we are in an experimental stage, and before we put these powers into a concrete and permanent form we ought to have time to make them in the light of the experience as complete as possible. I therefore hope the House will allow the Order in Council to stand. It is stronger even than these proposals, and it can be brought up again at the end of the year. The House will recollect that if an Order in Council and an Act of Parliament conflict, the Courts of law will, of course, give effect to the Act of Parliament. You may very well have Orders in Council which are necessarily much stronger than the existing Act of Parliament. But if the matter goes into the Courts they will be bound to say that the Act of Parliament, having laid down certain conditions, those are the only conditions applicable and the Order in Council is of no effect. For these reasons I ask the hon. Member not to press for the inclusion of this new Clause in the Bill, but to leave it over until the whole question is brought up again in the light of greater experience and knowledge.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The Home Secretary poses to-night, as he posed on the Second Reading of the Bill, as the firm defender of legislation by Order in Council rather than by special words used by Parliament to express the views of Members of this House. He reminded us of what happened on the Second Reading, but he unfortunately failed to remind the House of some very material facts which then came out. I think I am in the recollection of every Member of the House when I say that the keynote of the discussion of the Bill upon its Second Reading was the strong objection of this House to give to any Home Secretary or to any Government power to legislate by Order in Council and so deprive the House of its proper and legitimate legislative function. What happened? The Bill brought in by the Home Secretary was practically a one-Clause Bill, giving the Home Secretary power for two years to legislate by Order in Council. Protest came from every side of the House. At length the Home Secretary was compelled to say he would only legislate by Order in Council for one year and then, as he will remember, the opponents of the Bill reserved to themselves the right to introduce into the Bill in Committee or on Report such legislative enactments as appeared to be important in
regard to matters of principle. The right hon. Gentleman will not challenge my recollection there. It was upon those assurances, and those only, that he got the Second Reading of the Bill. What are we doing now? We are carrying out those very principles on which the Second Reading of the Bill was obtained, that is, putting into this Bill certain conditions under which it will be impossible for an alien to land in this country. There is no difference between us that there should be matters provided against the aliens. The difference of opinion between us is whether the thing should be expressed by the will of Parliament, or should be enacted by Order in Council, which might be revoked and abolished by the next Home Secretary, if such a one comes.
That is the real objection to legislation by Order in Council. My right hon. Friend is here to-day; he may be in some more exalted post to-morrow or later on. He may be succeeded by someone who does not hold the same views as to the immigration of undesirable aliens. The next coming Home Secretary may think it just to revoke every one of these admirable provisions of which my right hon. Friend is so proud and may introduce into his Order in Council some totally different regulations. That is what this House is determined to prevent. I am rather glad that this discussion has taken place now, because it will enable the House to decide the question raised by the Home Secretary and to say "aye" or "no" is the House going to resume its freedom of action in legislation. During the War we were willing to give a free hand to the Home Secretary and other Ministers, and they exercised it through Orders in Council. We say that the time has now come when the House should re-establish its undoubted right. Moreover it is our duty to legislate and not to delegate our powers. That being so, I ask the House to insert these words. What harm is done by inserting them? Will anyone say that any one of these reasons for keeping out aliens ought not to exist? Will any experience alter our minds? The right hon. Gentleman says that there may be other reasons which occur to him later for which he would wish to keep out aliens. There would be no objection to keeping them out. He is empowered by the Bill to make provisions of that sort. The right hon. Gentleman says: "Oh, do not -tie my hands, wait for a year's experience.
If you put in this Clause you may be putting in something which is very improper and which experience may prove to be improper." May I ask a direct question? Which of the grounds laid down in this Clause for keeping out aliens does he think experience would show to be inapplicable? Does he think any experience will show that a lunatic or an idiot ought to be admitted? Does he think experience will show that a pauper who cannot support himself and his family ought to be admitted? Does he think that experience will prove that lunatics or paupers will be desirable immigrants, or that moral derelicts or delinquents are desirable immigrants? Does he think a year's experience will prove to him that a man whom he himself has deported because he was either criminal or otherwise dangerous ought to be let in?

Mr. SHORTT: I can answer that now. As the hon. and learned Gentleman's question was based upon something I never said, or anything like I said, I really cannot answer it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: That is an answer in a sense, but not quite such a definite answer as I expected. My right hon. Friend did appeal for a year's experience.

Mr. SHORTT: To add to it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Passing this Clause will not prevent him adding to it. There is nothing in this Clause, if he finds there are other reasons besides those named for keeping out aliens, to prevent him issuing an Order in Council adding words. I am sure my right hon. Friend will not suggest that if we pass the Clause as it stands there will be anything in the world to prevent him adding other reasons by Order in Council. The last paragraph of the Clause says that the alien must fulfil
such other requirements as may be prescribed by any general or special instructions by the Secretary of State.
Therefore by this Clause he gets power to do all he wants to do. If that is so, is not the issue between us reduced to what I stated it to be at first—are we to go on neglecting our duties of legislating and delegate to the Home Secretary powers which belong to Parliament, or are we to take this, the first opportunity we have in a reasonable way, of reasserting the right of Parliament to legislate upon matters in regard to which the Home Secretary admits legislation should be passed at once?

Mr. KILEY: I am sure that Members of the House are prepared to support the Government in any action they may deem necessary or advisable in order to prevent undesirable aliens from landing on these shores. Judging from the speeches delivered up to now, the impression one would gather is that it is possible for any alien to land. What are the actual facts? In the Aliens Act, 1905, the law is clearly and distinctly laid down. If a man cannot show that he has in his possession or is in a position to obtain means to support his family, or is an idiot, or a lunatic, or has any disease or infirmity, or is likely to become a charge on the rates, or has been sentenced in a foreign country for any crime, or has had an expulsion order made against him, he is not allowed to land on our shores. That is the law to-day. Every alien arriving on our shores, if he comes in an immigration ship, is detained until he is personally examined by an officer properly appointed, and if he comes as a saloon passenger on a ship he is inspected by a. landing officer in order to see if he has anything likely to attract suspicion, and, if so, he can be detained. That is the law at present in force. If that is not sufficient. I have no doubt the Home Secretary will apply for further powers, and if he does his appeal will be received by this House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the hon. Member aware that in this Bill the Act of 1905 is repealed? Therefore his argument falls to the ground.

Mr. KILEY: That, of course, does destroy a good deal of the argument. But the Order in Council that the Home Secretary has announced is in force. Does it require strengthening in the way suggested by the Amendment? It says that a person must show his fitness from a moral, social or educational standpoint. That is very satisfactory, but if I were to have to pass that test I should like to know who is to be my judge, and what is to be the deciding factor. The provision is unworkable.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry there is not a larger attendance of Members to hear the very interesting speeches that have been made, especially the speech of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). Two points are at issue: first, is this particular Clause desirable in itself? I consider it contains some danger-
ous provisions. The second point at issue is whether we are to continue the farce of discussing this Bill in view of the attitude of the Government on the subject of Orders in Council. I propose to speak what is, in my mind, very strongly on the second point. On the first point one hon. Member made a somewhat unfair attack on the hon. Member for the Moss Side Division (Major Hurst) by saying that he was actuated by a selfish desire to see Manchester goods sold to any undesirable alien who comes here. Surely the matter goes a little deeper than that. It is obvious that at this time of all times it is most desirable that foreign buyers should be encouraged to come to this country. The hon. and learned Member for York challenged the Home Secretary to say if there was any provision in the Clause to which he objected. The Home Secretary did not answer, but I should like to answer on his behalf. After considerable experience of travel, as great perhaps as that of any Member of this House, and particularly after my experience in America and Canada, I challenge the hon. and learned Member to produce any Act of the United States of America or the Dominion of Canada which is as strong or bears any resemblance to paragraph (c) of this new Clause. It was stated by the Mover that these proposals had been adopted by the Dominions, and that a man has to prove that he is not unfit from a moral, social or educational standpoint to be an inhabitant of the country. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member can quote any Act passed by the United States Senate which contains those words. I can only say that, if he can, it is a dead letter. In the case of the ordinary first or second-class passenger, or for that matter, even the third-class passenger, it is impossible to say what his moral, social and educational qualifications are. When the Dominions are held up to us as examples of an admirable immigration system, my experience of their class of immigrants before the War does not bear out the contention that their moral, educational and social standpoint is up to that of the British Empire.
I can assure the House I have seen people clad mainly in sheep skins who could speak no language except that of the lesser Balkan principalities, whose personal cleanliness left a great deal to be desired, whose educational standpoint was nil, and they were being admitted into both Canada and the United States before
the War and no doubt they are being readmitted now. So I do not think the experience of those countries can be used as an argument in favour of, at any rate, that provision in the Clause.
Further, it would absolutely preclude a great many of our more Mahomedan Allies from coming into this country. Their educational standpoint is vastly different and certainly their moral standpoint is different from that of this country, though I am not prepared to say in some respects it is not superior to that of this country. We have had far too many speeches this afternoon suggesting that our moral and social standpoint is such a very admirable one. That of some of our Allies is quite as good as ours and our Mahomedan Allies as much as any, and as one interested in the Near East I should be sorry to see Parliament pass any Act which suggested that the moral and social standpoint of our Mahomedan Allies, though it may be vastly different from that of this country is inferior. [Interruption.] It distinctly arises if you put provisions of that kind into the Clause. When one turns to consider the question of the attitude of the Government in saying they would not lay down in this Bill what the regulations shall be, but that they propose to continue the system of Orders in Council, that is one of the weakest defences I have ever heard. Let me, as an old Member of the House, recall its attention to what has happened over this alien question before. I happened to fight a by-election in 1901 as a supporter of the then Tory Government on the subject or the then Aliens Bill, and I was elected largely as the result of the promises I gave to support the Government in the drastic aliens policy which was going to be brought in. A Bill was brought in, and largely owing to the efforts of the present Secretary of State for War it was whittled down to such an extent that it practically has had no good effect at all. In other words, most undesirable aliens have entered since the Bill was passed, I think almost to as great an extent as before. We owe that largely to the Secretary of State for War.
Therefore the Government have a distinct responsibility in the matter. They arc now once more dealing with the question which we were told at the time had been finally disposed of by the Act of 1905. We were told the undesirable alien was
going to be for once and all kept out of the country, and here, fifteen years later, we have the whole question brought up again, and it is not suggested that we are going finally to deal with it in this Bill. "No," says the Home Secretary, "we are neophytes in the matter. We come into virgin country; we are ignorant; we must wait for two years. This is a subject with which we are not acquainted." Has he never read the Debates of fifteen years ago, the promises which were then made, and the successful efforts of some of his present colleagues to prevent the Bill from having any useful effect? It is absurd, at this hour of the day, to say we must wait for another year or two years in order to see what the effect of our present regulations will be. I do not sympathise with a great deal of what has been said by what I may describe as rather extreme supporters of the Bill, and I wish to be associated with no possible action of theirs in this House or out of it, but at the same time I think the demand of the public and the Press; irrespective of any party consideration or any considerations of gaining any advantage at the next General Election, is that this question of the exclusion of undesirable aliens shall be finally dealt with by Parliament. For fifteen years Parliament has been talking. We have had speeches and articles on the subject. We are to-day in the position that the Government say, "We must have two more years' experience to see how the Orders in Council work." Why do they not once and for all deal with the matter by putting it into the Bill? The answer is, because in this, as in so many other matters, the Government are attempting to do too much, and they have not the time to do it. The real reason why the Home Secretary cannot give an answer is because the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet have not made up their minds on the subject. It would be far better to drop the Bill altogether and bring in next Session a Bill, as the result of the considered judgment of the Prime Minister and the Government, to really drastically exclude undesirable aliens, rather than continue the half-fledged chicken which we are discussing to day.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: During this Debate I have heard a good number of hon. Members talking about pledges given
at the Election. I gave no pledge at all, and therefore I have a free hand to vote one way or the other. In looking over the Amendments and the Bill, I think there is no need for any Amendments at all. I think the Bill is quite strong enough, and I should say without hesitation it is one of the strongest Alien Bills which has ever been presented. When you talk about the immorality of undesirable aliens in the East End of London and in Leeds and Manchester and other parts of the country, it appears to me that if the local unitary authorities did their duty you would find that the morals and the conditions of the people would be very much improved. The local sanitary authorities and medical officers are afraid, for some reason or other, to do their duty. If they did it, we should find ourselves in a different position. I wish to assert here and now that if you cleared every alien out of this country to-morrow the wage-earner would not be affected in the slightest degree. The alien not only produces but consumes. It has been said that aliens come into competition with our labour, and I admit that to a very large extent in the East End they do, but there is no doubt some of them have practically created new trades which would never have been developed but for them. I would clear out undesirable aliens to-morrow, but who is to decide what is an undesirable? There may be some Members in this House who are undesirable. There may be some people in Park Lane who are undesirable. Therefore, it appears to me you would have a very difficult job in deciding what is an undesirable. I am firmly convinced that if this Bill is carried and made stronger than it is you will create deep-rooted differences between people in this country and in other countries. We were led to understand that when the War was over we were all going to be friends again. Now you are going to try to create another difficulty, because you are going to try to insult people who you think are undesirable, and, of course, it will give encouragement to stronger legislation than you have at present. It will create deep-rooted division between our workers and what are known as enemy aliens, which, as I understand, has all gone by the board. The undesirable agitator, the man who is in a trade union for the purpose of creating divisions and strikes, can be dealt with by the Bill. I
notice that the Home Secretary has a new Clause in a typewritten form which has been issued.
An HON. MEMBER: Not to us.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: I got this from the Vote Office. [Interruption.] Go to the Vote Office and get one, as I did, and you can read it for yoursen. This is a very drastic Amendment. That and the Bill itself meet all the requirements which are desirable. If you think by simply keeping out a very large number of foreign workmen you are going to make economic conditions any better than they are now, you are making a huge mistake. If you cleared out every alien to-morrow the wage-earners would not be a farthing better off than they are at present.

Mr. INSKIP: The Home Secretary has really put the House into a very great difficulty. The speech to which we have just listened was directed to the question whether or not the proposals contained in the Amendment are right proposals or not, and sonic of us are in a considerable measure of agreement with some of the statements the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. In all the speeches for aria against the Amendment we all of us find things with which we agree and things with which we disagree. This is an Amendment which contains a great number of disqualifications with reference to aliens, as to whom the question is whether they shall be admitted, and I am in complete agreement with what my Noble Friend (Earl Winterton) said as to (c), that it is an unworkable and undesirable provision to put into the Bill. I was amazed to hear the Home Secretary, not tell us whether or not these are desirable or workable provisions, but say that they have actually been included in the Order in Council which was signed eighteen months ago and for the time being is the law of the land.

Mr. SHORTT: Not (c).

Mr. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman did not explain that. I am obliged to him for explaining that (c) has been omitted. I infer that everything except (c) has been included in the Order in Council.

Mr. SHORTT: Not quite.

Mr. INSKIP: We are in the dark as to what is the law of the land and how long it will be the law of the land, and whether these proposals are in agreement with the
opinion of the Home Secretary, or whether his experience leads him to believe that these are undesirable provisions.

Mr. SHORTT: The difference is that the words "in reasonable condition and comfort" arc not in. "He is in a position to support himself and his dependants." TT at is the way the Order in Council runs "(c)" is not in. All the other things are in the Order in Council, but the Order in Council goes still further.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman helps us to this extent, that some of these provisions are in the Order in Council and some are not. I infer from his explanation that he is opposed to this Amendment in the form in which it stands at present although generally speaking he is in favour of it for the time being. So far as he knows, subject to experience, he will 'be in favour of it being made a permanency in the Bill which he contemplates a year hence. But the speeches which will be delivered will inevitably direct themselves to the desirability of these provisions, as to which we are more or less in the dark in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. The really important point now is the point raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Butcher) and my Noble Friend (Earl Winterton), whether or not this provision is to be in the Bill or whether it is to be enacted by Order in Council. Speaking for myself, if that was the point on which I had to give my vote, I have not the least doubt I should give it against the proposal that the Order in -Council is to govern us. The right hon. Gentleman was careful to say these matters should be left open in order that-the Orders in Council might improve them. But matters are left over not only-that they may be improved, but they may be worsened if someone comes with an opinion different from that which I think is the temper of the House. I should like to know whether the Home Secretary will not on reconsideration advise the House as to whether or not these proposals are in his opinion desirable in order that we may have these two questions disentangled, as to whether we are to be governed by Order in Council, and whether these are proper proposals to be put forward, assuming that the Bill is to settle the question and not an Order in Council. I cannot help thinking from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel
Thorne) says about the typewritten Amendment which he was able to secure but which I was not able to obtain, that the Government is in a considerable state of doubt as to what it intends and what it does not intend. I notice that there is not a single Amendment down by the Government on the Paper. We are in the dark as to what the Government's intentions are. I hope the Government will make up their minds as to whether they will legislate by Order in Council or by Act of Parliament, and that they should then come and tell the House what they think is desirable to go into the provisions dealing with aliens, and what their intentions are, in order that we may consider the matter and have a reasonable opportunity of giving our best attention to it, and that meanwhile they should withdraw the Report stage of the Bill and have the matter put down for discussion in a week's time, or whenever the Government have been able to make up their minds upon this question.

Colonel YATE: The objection of the Home Secretary to putting this Order in Council in the Bill passes my comprehension. He tells us that we are in an experimental stage. That is one of the reasons for not putting the Regulations of the Order in Council in the Bill. The premises of the right hon. Gentleman are entirely wrong, and his conclusion falls to the ground. We have the experience of every other nation in the world. We have been told that all the nations have stipulations and regulations to the effect of the present proposals. Why does the Home Secretary come here and say we are in an experimental stage? The whole world has had experience, and we ought to benefit by their experience. As the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) said, this question has gone on for fifteen years, and we want something to be finally settled. I ask the Home Secretary to make up his mind and to say that the Order in Council should be put into the Bill, so that the whole thing can be settled once for all.

Mr. BILLING: What I understood the Home Secretary to say was that the present Order in Council is stronger than this Amendment. If that is so, the Home Secretary has conceded the principle for which we are fighting. He also said that he did not propose to put it into the Bill, and he told us that in his opinion legislation by Order in Council is more facile
than legislation by this House. If I am wrong I hope lie will correct me. He said that it was advisable to legislate by Order in Council than to proceed by legislation by this House. Am I right in saying that? If I am not right, there is no objection to putting this into the Bill. The Home Secretary has told us that by Order in Council, already passed—a copy of which I have not been able to get in the Vote Office—this principle is provided for and is the law of the land. We wish to make it the law of the land as sanctioned by Parliament. The Home Secretary objects; therefore I say the issue is distinct, It is whether or not this House is to make the laws of this land in the future, or whether we are to drift in regard to these matters and because the Government cannot make up their minds and the House has not the courage to press it we are to end by being governed by Order in Council. I regret that there are not sufficient Members at the present time to make a sufficient Lobby. Had they listened to the last half-dozen speeches, and in particular if they had analysed the Home Secretary's speech, the Government would be defeated in this Division.

Major GREAME: I think the whole House is at one on the really important point, not as to precise details as to whether (c) is to stand or not, but on the framework of this measure. I do not wish to put this point upon the ground of what is going to be said at the next General Election, or whether the Government are redeeming the pledges they gave at the last election. I do not want to say whether or not the Government has made up its mind. I think the Government has made up its mind. The Order in Council is there, I do not want to make any attack in that sense; the issue goes much deeper than that. Whatever party is going to be in power, it is absolutely essential that Parliament should have the confidence of the country—that the country should believe that Parliament is taking a definite interest in these matters, that matters are threshed out in Parliament and settled in Parliament, and that the registered will of the people, as expressed by their representatives in Parliament, goes into Acts of Parliament and governs the situation. I believe that is the collective opinion of every Member, no matter on what bench he sits. If that be so, the Home Secretary would be expressing the complete sense of
every section of the House which wishes to make the position of Parliament supreme if he would lay aside this legislation by Order in Council and accept this Clause. I am certain that we could agree upon a Clause that we could insert in the body of the Bill. The average person does not read Orders in Council. If he wants to read the law he may have to read the Acts of Parliament. What he does read is the papers. If you do not put the complete Clause in this Bill but give the Home Secretary the power to legislate by Order in Council, what will be said outside is simply this, that the. Government have taken new administrative power, and tint, they have taken power to do what they want in a Star Chamber way. That is what will be said, because the Government will have taken the wrong way of doing the thing. The Home Secretary would not weaken his position in any sense if he would adopt the course we suggest.

Sir H. NIELD: I want to call attention to what happened last December. There was an Order in Council, Number 22B, which prevented the employment of aliens in certain work. Parliament rose on the, 18th December and that Order was revoked on the 20th, and there was no possible means of dealing with the matter. Then we were told with the greatest effrontery that it was desirable to release these aliens from the obligations of the Order so that they might go to work on munitions. That is the way Departments do their work. It is because Departments have not the time that the Home Secretary is in the uncomfortable position of not having the Amendments on the Order Paper, and consequently we are at a disadvantage. It is all a question of administrative convenience and time. As I pointed out, the bureaucrat is the only man who dissented from the conclusions of the Commission of 1903. When I look at this report and see what was at that moment reported to be the state of law, not only in our own Dominions, but in foreign countries, including the United States, I find that in every case the substance of the present proposition is included, not by administrative order but by an Act of the country or the Dominion or dependency to which it related. I invite the Home Secretary's consideration of that fact. There was not one case in which this matter was dealt with by administrative decree. In every case it was a matter
of statute. If the House had time to consider this matter in relation to the report as to what was found to be the state of the permanent law in all these other countries, they would find that every one of the case except "c" is amply covered, and in some cases more than covered. The hon. Member for West Ham is under a delusion if he thinks the Government are going to accept responsibility for the Bill as it stands. After what took place in Committee I believe we are to face an attempt to diminish what is in the Bill and what was put there by the Committee. It would be a fair compromise to ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Second Reading of this Clause and to let the Bill go to another place. We should then have a better guarantee of getting what the people want; but I very much fear that when we see the Home Secretary's Amendments we shall find that an attempt has been made to whittle down what we have acheived in Committee. I ask the Home

Secretary to agree to this in order to prevent misrepresentation outside as to the attitude of the Government.

Mr. SHORTT: Hear, hear.

Sir H. NIELD: Well, do not give them foundation for it. What you are doing now is giving an ample basis upon which the most unscrupulous can raise a fabric which it will take us all our time to demolish. We have fought for the Government and their good faith. We are still fighting in by-elections for the Government and its good faith. How much longer can we go on fighting for their good faith if these kind of tactics are to be pursued? I ask the Home Secretary to abandon an impossible attitude and to adopt this Clause, subject to its being amended in the form which has been indicated.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 157.

Division No. 110.]
AYES.
[8.13 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Oman, C. W. C.


Archdale, Edward M.
Greene, Lt. Col. W. (Hackney, N.)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W
Greer, Harry
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W
Gretton, Colonel John
Perkins, Walter Frank


Balfour. George (Hampstead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Perring, William George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hanna, G. B.
Pickering, Col. Emil W.


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hennessy, Major G.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton


Betterton, H. B.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Preston, W. R.


Bigland, Alfred
Jones, William Kennady (Hornsey)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Billing, Noel Pemberton
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Kidd, James
Ramsden, G. T.


Borwick, Major G. O.
King, Commander Douglas
Romer, J. B.


Bottomley, Horatio
Knights, Captain H.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Rogers, Sir Hallowell


Bruton, Sir J.
Law. A. J. (Rochdale)
Roundell, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.


Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A
Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Lorden, John William
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Lort-Williams, J.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Campbell, J. G. D.
Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Strafford)
Stewart, Gershom


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Lynn, R. J.
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Cayzer, Major H. R.
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Chadwick, R. Burton
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Maddocks, Henry
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Mitchell, William Lane
Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Murchison, C. K.
Winterton, Major Earl


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Dockrell, Sir M.
Nelson, R. F. W. R
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Lange, E. S.
Nield, Sir Herbert



Goff. Sir R. Park
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Gould, J. C.
Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.
Hopkins and Mr. Sugden.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Cairns, John


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brcese, Major C. E.
Cape, Tom


Baird, John Lawrence
Briant, F.
Carr, W. T.


Baldwin, Stanley
Briggs, Harold
Carter, W. (Mansfield)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Britton, G. B.
Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Cohen, Major J. B. B.


Blades, Sir George R.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Colfox, Major W. P.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Burden, Colonel Rowland
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Irving, Dan
Rowlands, James


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Johnson, L. S.
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, Alfred (Ciitheroe)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Seager, Sir William


Dawes, J. A.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Duncannon, Viscount
Kiley, James Daniel
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Edgar. Clifford
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.(N'castle-on-T., W.)


Edge, Captain William
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sitch, C. H.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Lunn, William
Spencer, George A.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Spoor. B. G.


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Mackinder, Halford J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Ashton)


Falcon, Captain M.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Fell, Sir Arthur
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Magnus, Sir Philip
Sturrock, J. Leng


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Sutherland, Sir William


Forrest, W.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Swan, J. E. C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Manville, Edward
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Mason, Robert
Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham
Morison, T. B. (Inverness)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mosley, Oswald
Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)


Gilmour, Lieut. Colonel John
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Thorpe. J. H.


Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Neal, Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Newbould, A. E.
Waddington, R.


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Parker, James
Wallace, J.


Griggs, Sir Peter
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Grundy, T. W.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)
Pratt, John William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wedgwood. Colonel Josiah C.


Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Purchase, H. G.
Whitla, Sir William


Hartshorn, V.
Raeburn, Sir William
Wignall, James


Hayward, Major Evan
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Wilkie, Alexander


Henderson. Arthur
Rankin, Capt. James S.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Hinds, John
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hirst, G. H.
Reid, D. D.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Hogge, J. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Rodger, A. K.
TELLERS FOR THE. NOES.—Capt.


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Rothschild, Lionel de
Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


Hurst, Major G. B.




Question put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of former enemy Aliens Holding Land, etc.)

(1). No former enemy alien shall be entitled, either in his own name or through the intervention of a trustee, to acquire or to hind any land or interest in land in the United Kingdom, or to carry on, either alone or jointly with any other person or persons, any business in the United Kingdom which may from time to time be certified by the President of the Board of Trace to be a Key industry, or to hold any share or shares in any company carrying on such business, or in any company owning a British ship or ships.

(2). Any land or interest in land, and any such business or share in any such business as is mentioned in this Section, and any share or shares in such company as is mentioned in this Section which are at the time of the passing of this Act or may hereafter be held by or in trust for a former a ten enemy shall, upon an application being made to the Court in the prescribed manner, be vested in the Public Trustee and shall be dealt with by him in such manner as may be determined by Parliament.

(3). The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any former alien enemy who may be certified by the Secretary of State to be a member of a nation or race hostile to the `States recently at war with His Majesty and to be well disposed to His Majesty and His Government.—[Sir J. Butcher.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Home Secretary told us just now that he had drafted a new Clause dealing with this matter. That Clause, which is to carry out the pledge given in Committee, has not been put on the Paper, and we have not seen it. I do think that this House should legislate on what is an important question, namely, former enemy aliens holding shares in shipping companies or owning land. But as we have not seen what the proposals of the Government are I would suggest that the difficulty might be got over in this way: that this Clause should be adjourned until to-morrow, when we shall have the Government Clause on the Paper, and we shall be able to consider it, and my Clause will be where it is, and we shall have both Clauses. In order to be able to take the Government Clause to-morrow, or mine, it would be necessary for the Home Secretary not to go beyond the new Clauses tonight, because if he does so and begins a
consideration of the Amendments on Report, we cannot go back to the new Clauses.

Mr. SHORTT: The suggestion I would make to my hon. and learned Friend is this: It is quite true that if we go on to the Amendments we cannot go back to the new Clauses, but what we can do, and what I intend to suggest to the House can be done, is that we should go right on with the Amendments, and then, when we complete the Amendments, I would move to commit the Bill to a Committee of this House, for the purpose of considering the Clause which my hon. and learned Friend has put down and my Clause, so that we need not waste any time on the matter.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Subject to anything that may be suggested in other quarters of the House, I think that course would be a way out of the difficulty. This Clause is somewhat separated from other parts of the Bill, and, therefore, possibly we could go on with the other Clauses without interfering with this one. Formally, I ought to move to ask leave to withdraw the Clause, for unless I withdraw it we cannot discuss it later.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The only Motion the hon. Member can move is that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I will move accordingly.

Sir H. NIELD: That is a very drastic step. It seems to me that the course suggested was the wiser one, rather than that we should have the trouble of a recommittal of the Bill. If this had been in the bad old days of pure party government some of the older Members of the House would have whipped up so many other matters and details that in a full House the Government would have wished they had done nothing so foolish as to recommit the Bill. Surely the better plan would be to postpone this Clause until after the remaining Clauses of the Bill have been taken. I would like to move that the consideration of this Clause be postponed until the end of the new Clauses.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no Motion to postpone the new Clause. The correct Motion is that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Mr. SHORTT: If you go into the Amendments to the existing Clauses to-night you
can recommit for the definite purpose of this Clause, and nothing else would be raised in the Committee stage. It would be perfectly safe, even if there happened to be obstructive tacticians in the House. I would suggest that the hon. Member for York withdraw this Clause, or, at any rate, not move it at the moment. If we do not get beyond the new Clauses to-night it will be down as a new Clause for discussion to-morrow. If we do get beyond the new Clauses I will move to recommit the whole Bill with regard to this particular Clause.

Sir H. NIELD: I will not resist further.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Upon that statement I beg leave to withdraw the Motion I have made.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Additional Powers of Secretary of State.)

The Secretary of State may, if he thinks it necessary in the interests of public safety, direct that any of the provisions of this Act as to former enemy aliens shall in particular cases be applicable to other aliens, and thereupon such provisions shall apply accordingly.—[Sir J. Butcher.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The reason for this Amendment is that there are in this Bill certain special provisions as regards former enemy aliens. There are, for instance, Clause 8, which refers to the turning out of such aliens from the country; Clause 9, preventing the admission of former enemy aliens; and Clause 10, saying that no former enemy alien can be employed as master, officer, or member of the crew of any British ship. I think the Home Secretary agrees that it is desirable he should have the power of extending these restrictions in the case of aliens other than enemy aliens. The only difference between him and myself is as to whether this Clause should go into the Bill or whether it should go into an Order in Council. I beg the Home Secretary to allow it to go into the Bill. I do not desire to repeat what has been said in nearly every quarter as to the necessity for legislation by Parliament and not by the Home Secretary. I do not see any reason why we should not have this in the Bill. The Home Secretary said something to the effect that he did not want his discretion hampered. It is not desired in the least to hamper his discretion. It is not suggested that he must apply these powers,
but that in his discretion he may apply them. There was one other argument the right hon. Gentleman used. He said that if the French saw a power like this in the Bill they would be very much annoyed. I am sure that our gallant French allies would not be so intensely foolish. They know perfectly well that we are not going to treat them as though they were undesirable and to prevent them from coming into the country. We are not going to treat them as if they were Germans. Any Home Secretary who attempted such an outrage would, I hope, be turned out of his office in ten minutes. Therefore, let it not be said that we are going to insult the French or any of our allies by taking powers of this sort. I hope that the Home Secretary, after having achieved a very partial victory in the recent Division, will now come forward magnanimously and accept this.

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to second the Motion.
We had a discussion in Committee on this subject, and the then Under-Secretary, who has passed to the more serene climes of the Foreign Office and to an atmosphere much freer from the responsibility for which he can be called to account, then read to us what he declared was proposed to be put into the draft Order and designated Article II.
The Secretary of State may by Order impose on any alien or class of aliens such restriction in addition to the other restrictions imposed by this Order—
I invite the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to consider what is the power proposed to be taken in this new draft Order.
as to the residence, reporting to the police, registration, use or possession of any machinery, apparatus, arms, explosives or other articles, or otherwise, that may be deemed necessary in the public interest, and any alien in relation to whom such Order is made shall comply with the terms of such Order.
There is the proposed new Order in Council, and I understand that that Order has gone through, and so much the better.

Sir J. BUTCHER: That Order which has gone through is an Order under the 1914 Act.

Sir H. NIELD: I shall not be surprised if, as a result of this Debate, throughout the country there will be a demand not to do it now but to put it in the Bill. I do ask that this should be a matter dealt with by substantive and definite legislation, and that it should not be left to
those behind the scenes to work it according to their own purposes, or according to what they are pleased to think, and not the House of Commons, are the interests of the State.

Mr. SHORTT: There is something to be said for this Amendment which does not require to be supported by talk about general legislation by Order in Council. This particular proposal does deal with certain permanent provisions in the present Bill. It gives the Secretary of State certain power limited to particular cases, and if the imaginary Home Secretary arrives who is not going to carry out the provisions of the Act at all, it will not be of much value, and it will not be any protection against what hon. Members might consider a contumacious Home Secretary. It does not give anything that does not at present exist. It seems to me to be superfluous, but, personally, I have no objection to it, and, therefore, if the hon. and learned Member cares to put it in the Bill I am quite prepared to accept it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Aliens on Juries.)

No alien shall be entitled to sit upon a jury in any judicial or other proceedings if challenged by any party to such proceedings.—[Mr. Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I understand that for once we are in agreement, and I gather that if I limit this exclusion from juries to cases where the alien is challenged that the Home Secretary will accept. I do not need to speak of the old maxim that we are entitled to be tried by our peers. I have had some experience myself. I remember one case in which the foreman of the jury did not speak a word of English, and if that could happen in one case it could happen in a hundred cases. Service on juries is a duty as well as a privilege, and I think it is a great danger that a jury trying a British citizen might consist of aliens.

Mr. BILLING: I beg to second the Motion.
It is not all of us who have had the opportunity of having had to deal with a jury. Like the hon. Member who proposed the Motion I should take it very unkindly were
I to find myself being tried by aliens. I would have preferred the Clause without the condition as to challenging. No prisoner or defendant likes to challenge a jury, for directly you start challenging there is an atmosphere of distrust, and the jury regard you as someone whom they do not like quite so well as before they were challenged. When we have got the principle that a man shall be tried by his own countrymen, I fail to see why the Home Secretary should not consent.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Like my hon. Friend I dare say I would not like to be tried by a jury of aliens. I would like to see the word "challenge" removed. The defendant probably does not know very much about the law and he has not the right to say, "Are any of you aliens, and, if so, I object?" On the contrary, he will accept the jury when they are sworn, and there may be more than one alien upon it, and when he learns that fact he may dislike it very much. Therefore I would ask my hon. Friend to agree to leave out the words "if challenged by any party to such proceedings," and to lay it down broadly and simply that a Britisher shall be tried by Britishers. That is a good, simple proposition which my hon. Friend (Mr. Bottomley) proposed upstairs, and which he would have stuck to but for some remarks made by the Home Secretary, and I regret to say that even my hon. Friend's impeccable virtue was undermined on that occasion. I now offer him the opportunity of recovering his reputation by agreeing to the omission of these words.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): Perhaps the House will allow me to endeavour to shorten the discussion by at once accepting the principle of the Amendment. There is only this point I would like to put, that the Amendment rather implies that it is a privilege to sit upon a jury. That is rather a new light, and if means could be found to alter the phraseology so as to make it quite clear that it is not withdrawing a privilege, probably that would meet the view of the Mover of the Clause and of the House as a whole. Subject to that, we are quite prepared to accept the Clause, and I hope the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Butcher) will not press his suggestion far a further alteration. It seems to me that it is a pity that a foreigner, who enjoys all the privileges of
living in this country and all the advantages which can be got in that way, should not also have to bear same of the burdens, such as liability to sit on a jury if called upon to do so. At the same time, if anyone who has the misfortune to be tried objects, as most of us probably would object, to being tried by a foreigner on a jury, it is open to such a person at once to object to the foreigner's presence. If, therefore, the Clause can be left, subject possibly to an alteration in the phraseology for the purpose of making it clear that it is not a privilege that we are removing from the foreigner, the Government will accept it.

Sir W. DAVISON: May I suggest that the word "may" should be inserted instead of the words "shall be entitled"?

Sir H. NIELD: I approach this subject with some trepidation. I should desire to ensure that a Britisher should be tried by a British jury if possible, but on the other side of my mind I have the immunity it gives to a man who comes here and takes advantage of our civic institutions. [An HON. MEMBER: "To hang us! "] I hope it will never come to that. It is my duty to sit once a month on the other side of Parliament Square, and my first duty there is always to receive complaints from those who do not desire to serve on a jury, and I think that fully one-third if not one-half of the jurymen ask to be excused on one ground or another. I remember on a notable occasion when the Gothas were dropping bombs in this vicinity, on the 7th July, 1917, a German took that as being an appropriate moment to ask me to exempt him from service on a jury because he was a German, and when I expressed my surprise that he was out and about taking the air at that moment, he produced a ticket authorising him to travel for five miles from Charing Cross. I told him I would not require him to sit in the jury box, but that he would have to sit in Court the remainder of the day and share what danger there was for the rest of us from the activities of his countrymen, and I suppose he stayed there and did so. I am not anxious to allow these gentlemen to escape from the performance of their civic duties. You can always find out who the men are. If this Bill passes with the Clause against a change of name, you will be saved from some unpronounceable Polish-Jew or German assuming the name of Howard or Clifford, or
Grosvenor, or those many other names which we know they are accustomed to adopt, and if they are obliged to appear in their own name a look will at once enable the defendant silently to indicate that that particular gentleman should, be required to leave the box if already there or should not be allowed to enter the box. It is only with that desire to protest against relieving these men, if they are allowed to come here, from a very salutary opportunity of seeing how much more fair English justice is than they probably see in their own country that I dislike this Clause, but I have too much respect for my hon. Friends on either side of me to differ from them, and therefore I shall not challenge a Division.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand the hon. Member for South Hackney has a predilection for being tried by his peers. If this Clause gives him that right I have no objection, but I ask how is that possible?
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a second time.

Sir J. BUTCHER: May I move to leave out the words "if challenged by any party to such proceedings? I do not want a British subject who is brought up before any Court to be put in peril of being tried by one or more aliens, and I hope my hon. Friend who represents the Government will see that that is quite a reasonable request. Why should a man be put in the rather invidious position of challenging the jury?

Sir H. NIELD: Are we right in amending a Clause at this stage?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When a Clause has been read a second time it can be amended. I paused for a moment because I thought someone would move to leave out the words "be entitled to."

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "be entitled to."

An HON. MEMBER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major BAIRD: The Government will accept that Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, to leave out the words "if challenged by any party to such proceedings."

Mr. BILLING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major BAIRD: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. I do not think we want to confer privileges on foreigners not enjoyed by our own countrymen. It is perfectly competent, under the Clause, if anyone objects to an alien on the jury, to have him removed, and I do not think we ought to relieve an alien, who has all the privileges of an alien in this country, from discharging his obligation.

Mr. BILLING: Would it not be well that when jurymen answer to their names they should answer to their nationality as well, so as to give the prisoner or defendant an opportunity of knowing whether they are British or otherwise?

Sir H. NIELD: Would a compromise be acceptable to my hon. Friend and to the Front Bench by inserting the words "save in the case of a coroner's jury "?

Major BAIRD: I would much prefer to leave it as it is.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Marriage with Aliens.)

It shall be unlawful for any alien to enter into a contract of marriage with any British subject without first obtaining a licence authorising such marriage from a Secretary of State.—[Mr. Bottomley.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This new Clause is one in which, unlike the other, I have no kind of personal interest. I have purposely used the phrase "any alien" instead of the phrase "any enemy alien," because I take it, in the case of enemy aliens, there would be very little opposition. The laws of almost all the countries in Europe relating to marriage differ from each other, and differ fundamentally from the laws of this country. Nobody, I believe, can say what is the present law in France relating to marriage without the consent of parents, even if a man is thirty years of age. It applies equally to almost every country in the world, and, inasmuch as we are dealing to-day with alien perils and alien restrictions, I do not know how far the Government will accept the principle of this Amendment, which will leave the Home Secretary in the exalted position of
exercising a function which, I believe, hitherto has been confined to certain ecclesiastical functionaries. There is a good deal of genuine substance in this Amendment, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not shy at it.

9.0 P.M.

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to second the Motion.
One hears of cases of young women marrying, and indeed of men marrying, but certainly of cases over and over again where a girl has been married abroad, and finds out to her cost, when it suits the man to cast her off, that she is not the lawful wife at all. I think this Amendment will do something towards ameliorating that state of things I have long felt that it should be the law that where two persons, one British and the other of foreign nationality, propose to marry, a certificate as to the validity of that marriage should be a sine qua non before the banns were allowed to be put up, because we ought, in the interests of our own people, to take care that these mixed marriages should never take place without they were lawful in both countries, and not merely in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It seems to me that this Clause is very much a leap in the dark. I do not know how much it affects the case of Britishers resident abroad who wish to marry in that country—sailors, for example, in a foreign port. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South Hackney has considered the case of the sailor in a foreign port where there is probably not a British Consul. If that sailor wanted to get married, unless I am very much mistaken, he would have to wait until he got home and obtained the consent of the Secretary for State under this Clause. It is rather sweeping. Does it apply to Americans? I should like to know the effect in the American States if this Clause were adopted. I do not think it would improve the relations between the two countries. After what has happened in the last five years, it would be most unfortunate to put this sort of spoke in the wheel of good relations. If there is one thing to which our people object it is bureaucracy, and yet here you are introducing it into the question of marriage. Before these people can know whether they can get married they have to get a document, signed, sealed, and
stamped by a lot of officials in Downing Street. There is a strong movement now amongst the clergy, especially in the East of London, to make the marriage ceremony hedged about with less difficulties and less financial cost. They want to make marriage easier, and yet here you are putting obstacles in the way of a lawful union. I do hope the Clause will not be pressed. There is the case of a soldier friend of mine who married a French girl in the retreat from Mons. He has apparently to get permission after the event. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] The thing will result in all sorts of complications. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, and if it is, that my right hon. Friend will not accept it.

Major BAIRD.: I do not see why this particular question should be apportioned to the Home Secretary. To put this matter in his province is putting something about which really he cannot be a good judge. Year after year we, in this House, encroach more and more on the liberties of the people; but one thing we have left alone up to now is their marriage. I hope the day is far distant when a man has got to see somebody sitting in a Government Office—I do not care which—in Whitehall, and consult him as to arrangements which he proposes to make in the future before his marriage can be carried out. I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.
Question put, and negatived.
The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel RAYMOND GREENE:
No alien shall be eligible to vote at any Parliamentary or municipal election whether his or her name appear as a registered voter or not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This proposed Clause has somehow got on the Amendment Paper by mistake, proper notice apparently not having been given of it previous to the sitting of the House. It is also, I may say, beyond the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Emergency Powers.)

(1) The powers which under Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914 (which Act, as amended by this Act, is herein-after in this Act referred to as the principal Act), are exerciseable with respect to aliens at any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen, shall, for a period of one year after the passing of this Act, be exerciseable, not only in those circum-
stances, but at any time; and accordingly that Sub-section shall, for such period as aforesaid, have effect as though the words "at any time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen" were omitted.

(2) Any Order made under the principal Act during the currency of this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder:

Provided that this provision shall not apply in the case of an Order the operation of which is limited to a time when a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen.

Sir E. WILD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "for a period of one year after the passing of this Act."
The Clause as it reads is to the effect that an Order in Council may be made for a period of one year after the passing of this Act. I would remind the House in a few words as to what occurred when this Bill was introduced in April, and on Second Reading. At that time it was a very small measure of four Clauses, and with the exception of the third Clause, which dealt with the question of seditious agitation, it was merely a proposition to allow the Secretary of State to make Orders in Council to deal with the question of aliens. It will be remembered that as the Bill was introduced this power was given for a period of two years. The justification for that period was stated by the Home Secretary to be that this was only a temporary measure. He said: "We want to see what happens at the end of two years. We want to see the effect of the Bill. His Majesty will be able to make Orders in Council to deal with that period, and after that we shall review the whole question of alien legislation." There was a very animated discussion on that occasion, and strong opinions were expressed in this House in regard to the policy of Orders in Council. The net result of that discussion was that my right hon. Friend agreed in Committee that he would limit the period of the Orders in Council to one year. So far so good.
If the Bill—and I want the House to follow this—had remained in the form which it assumed upon leaving this House on Second Reading in regard to the period of one year, it would have been a great deal better for the liberty of the subject, for the simple reason that this most unpleasant and unconstitutional method of legislation by Orders in Council would have been reduced from two years to one year. Owing to the heroic efforts of Standing Committee A, in spite of every sort of opposition on the part of the Home Office and the Department, we have succeeded in making this Bill a very different Bill to what it was when it left this House. No longer does it merely consist of four Clauses. It now consists of fourteen Clauses. Hon. Members will find, if they run through the Bill, that Clauses 4 to 10 inclusive are new Clauses, and I think 11 and 12 too. At all events, the net result is that we have succeeded in introducing into the Bill a number of propositions for legislation to deal with the alien question, deportation, change of name, pilotage certificates, which matters are put down in black and white in the Act of Parliament. In these circumstances, I submit to my right hon. Friend, or whoever represents the Home Office at present on the Front Bench, that it is much more satisfactory that this power, in so far as it still resides in the Home Office, of Orders in Council should be continued not for a year but for all time. In this matter of positive legislation we have not succeeded to the extent of our hopes, nor, in my humble judgment, have we succeeded to the extent of the wishes of the electorate. We have put into the hands of the Home Secretary the right to make these Orders in Council. Therefore, it seems to me that this, the time when we are dealing with the whole alien question—we do not want to defer it for a year or two years—we want to deal with it now that the iron is hot—is the time when, giving the Home Secretary the power we have to make Orders in Council, we should see that it is not for a period of one year, but until Parliament otherwise enacts. It is no good tinkering with measures, and we want to get the alien question settled. We have not got the settlement we want, but we have got the best we could get, and it does not lie in the mouth of the Under-Secretary to say that this legislation should not continue until Parliament should otherwise enact. I loathe legislation by Orders in Council, because it is
unconstitutional and undemocratic. Therefore, as the House in its wisdom has decided that a certain part of the alien legislation should be left to the discretion of the Home Office, we say that we want to deal with the alien question now in order that this Bill may take a corporate form and continue to be law until Parliament otherwise enacts. I think this Amendment recommends itself to my hon. Friends, and I hope it will commend itself to the Under-Secretary and the Home Office generally.

Mr. LORDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STURROCK: The object of this Amendment is to put this Bill as a permanent measure upon the Statute Book, and my hon. and learned Friend who has moved it declares that while so far he and his Friends have not secured all they desire, yet they feel it would be a great pity to lose an opportunity of making permanent all the Clauses they have secured in Committee. I should like to point out that there are many hon. Members who object to every one of the additional Clauses which have been put into this Bill in Committee. A great many hon. Members who have taken no part in the Committee stage realise that this country is going to be made by this measure the laughing stock of the whole world, and for this reason I think the activities of my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir E. Wild) and those who act with him ought to be severely curtailed. We have just passed through the greatest crisis in our history, and we have survived a great number of perils during every stage of the War, and now we have the old stunt hunters saying they must have a thoroughgoing Act, under the operation of which it will be impossible for any alien to creep into this country even in any disguised form. It seems to me that if those hon. Members can only see themselves as the vast majority of the people in the provinces of this country see them, they would realise that they are looked upon as acting like a pack of old women gazing under every bed towards midnight to see if there is a burglar there. The whole thing is a travesty and a piece of preposterous nonsense, worked up in a way that is so common nowadays. When my hon. and learned Friend claims that the result which he and his Friends have secured must not be lost for the permanent good of the
country, I do say that I hope this House will not allow this Bill to be passed in any permanent form. When once the excitement amongst certain extreme members of the community has died down, even many of those who are supporting these proposals will realise that this Bill is the product of a panic, and ought never to become a piece of our permanent legislation. I offer this proposal a strong opposition, and I trust the Home Office will not accept it.

Major BAIRD: Although I cannot agree with the description given of this Bill by the last speaker, I do not think it is a sort of legislation which we should like to see permanently placed on the Statute Book. It is a measure based upon war-time experience, but it will have to be applied in peace time. I do not think it will be contended that time is not necessary in order to be sure that this measure is just and meets the requirements of the case. When we: are dealing with a matter so complicated for the purpose of controlling the influx of aliens, I do not think anybody will contend that we have had up to the present experience sufficiently wide and prolonged to enable us to lay down a definite policy. That was admitted when the Bill was brought in, and it was in deference to the representation of my lion and learned Friend who moved this Amendment, and those who act with him, that the time was reduced from two years to one year.
I do not agree that the Bill has been so much improved by the additional Clauses added during the Committee stage that it can now be looked upon as a perfect piece of legislation to be allowed to run for all time. We cannot be expected to admit that the Clauses introduced in Committee are improvements, and nobody would be surprised if we tried to get modifications in the House which we were not able to get in Committee upstairs. So far from the Bill being improved by the changes which were carried against the Government upstairs, it is quite obvious that, in our view, the Bill is not so good as it was originally. Therefore we must look upon this as a temporary measure, and it must be the duty of Parliament to review this measure after a sufficient time has elapsed in order to see whether these proposals really achieve the objects in view. For these reasons it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment which has been moved.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As I understand it, this Amendment makes permanent the arrangements which have been made during the War with regard to aliens who come into this country. I cannot imagine that the hon. Member really wishes all Americans for all time to sign these forms at every place, to report to the police wherever they go, and to do all the hundred and one more or less silly things that have had to be done by aliens during the War. This legislation, I suppose, is necessary because the anti-Semitic people are in the majority in this House. Do let us take a commonsense view and prevent this country being made ridiculous by requiring unfortunate Americans who come to these shores to go through all the trouble and expense that the hon. Member opposite wishes them to go through. I maintain that this Bill is wrong from beginning to end, but to make the Regulations for registering everybody permanent seems to me to be the last word in insanity.

Sir H. NIELD: I overheard the Under-Secretary say that you could not expect the Government to accept as improvements the alterations which have been made, and he wound up by saying that of course it was ridiculous to suppose that this was permanent legislation, and that they would ask Parliament to review it. Why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman drop this hyprocrisy of asking Parliament to review anything. When the Bill was before the Committee upstairs Whips were issued from time to time and men were sent wildly round to find anybody to make up the numbers, and now the Government say that they are going to disregard the work of the Committee, and they talk about Parliament reviewing it. That shows the folly of this Grand Committee system which purports to divide the work among Members upstairs. The whole system has now been reduced to a scientific farce, and the sooner we shut up the doors of this House and allow the officers in Whitehall full scope for their abilities the better it will be for our time.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. ROTHSCHILD: I beg to move, at the end of Subsection (1), to add the words:
Provided that

(a) where leave to land in this Kingdom is withheld from an alien by the immigration officer, such alien or the master, owner, or agent of the ship on which he has travelled to this Kingdom may appeal to
142
the immigration board of the port (as constituted under Section two of the Aliens Act, 1905, and the regulations thereunder), and that board, if they are satisfied that leave to land should not be withheld, shall give leave to land, and leave so given shall operate as the leave of the immigration officer;
(b) in exercising the powers given by this Bill and the principal Act no Order for the deportation of an alien shall be made unless a certificate recommending the making of such Order has been issued by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or by Court of Assize, or the High Court before which the alien to be deported has had an opportunity of stating his case."

The Under-Secretary's description of this Bill as a purely temporary measure perhaps in some way detracts from the first part of my Amendment, but I hope that the Home Secretary will not refuse the Amendment without giving it careful thought. All that it proposes is to give an alien who wishes to come to this country the right of being heard by three people, or, rather, by a board, instead of the case being in the hands of one Government official. At the same time, it gives to an alien who is under an order for deportation the right of being heard before a magistrate instead of leaving him at the mercy of the Home Office, which, translated literally, means the police. I have the greatest possible faith in the integrity of the police, and I believe that they try to exercise their powers to the very best of their ability. I also believe, if these functions were given into their hands, that they would try their best and that the Home Office would see that no injury was done. But it has never been the principle of British justice for any individual to be at the mercy of one man. There has always been an appeal allowed him before he is sentenced. And for an alien who has resided in this country for many years, who, perhaps, has made this his home and has no other home, and who might have been naturalised had it not been for the War, to be deported without trial is not, I think, worthy of the dignity of this great country. The freedom which has been given to all will, I hope, still last, and I sincerely trust that that bitter feeling which I am afraid has pervaded some of the speeches to-night against my poorer co-religionists in this country will not stand in the way of elementary justice being done these poor people. This Amendment is not put down with any idea of allowing in alien enemies or of interfering with the deportation of alien enemies. It is put
down at the request of the representatives of the Jewish body in this country who believe that it is a necessary safeguard to protect the poorer Jews from that spirit which I am sorry to say has pervaded some of the speeches here to-night. It is with the earnest hope that the Home Office will consider it that I venture to propose it.

Sir W. WHITLA: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment, and I appeal to the sense of fair play and justice of this House to accept it.

Major BAIRD: This Amendment is governed very largely by the same considerations which led me to refuse to accept the last Amendment. As my hon. and gallant Friend will remember, this Clause applies for the period of one year after the passing of this Act. He desires by his Amendment to re-establish the Aliens Immigration Boards that were set up under the Act of 1905, and which have been in abeyance since the Act of 1914, which controlled immigration during the War. There are various reasons why the present is hardly a good moment to reestablish with regard to one section of immigrants legislation which has been in abeyance during the period of the War. The whole of this legislation which we are submitting to the House is in the nature of an experiment. The boards were not wholly satisfactory. We have to deal with cases of immigration on a local rather than on a national basis—the very opposite basis to that which should be applied in dealing with this question. Although it will be desirable to have some form of appeal it is our hope that the appeal afforded by the machinery which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to re-establish will not be pressed at the present moment. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that it is not in any spirit of hostility towards those in whom he is interested that I am obliged to oppose his Amendment. It is because we do not consider that the moment is opportune for setting up once more the boards which he desires to see re-established. We recognise that the whole of this problem of immigration can only now be considered to be in the experimental stage, and I therefore hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not seek to interfere with the proposal we are putting forward for dealing with the matter for a period of one year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: All lovers of liberty in this House who have thought out the interests involved in this very important Amendment must be disappointed at the extremely lame reasons given for its rejection by the last speaker. Many Members of the House must be well aware of the existing state of affairs. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes) is one of the supporters of this Amendment. There is a very large Jewish population in Manchester and at the present moment cases are occurring in which poor Jews of good character have been sent out of this country merely at the instance of a special policeman whose suspicions have been aroused by statements by trade rivals. An alien can be deported on the mere ukase of the Home Office. There is no appeal whatever. This Amendment proposes to give a right of appeal, either to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or to the High Court, and all who have any regard for liberty at all or for constitutional government should be willing to give the stranger within our gates this safeguard. I am proud to say many of these men have appealed to me, although I am not a co-religionist. I have taken up their cases, and one always receives the greatest assistance from the Home Office in investigating them. Men have been sent to an unknown destination on the word of the secret police, and very often the police have been informed either by a trade rival or by a person with whom the deportee has quarreled. There is also the case of unfortunate Russians who cannot get back into this country, although their wives and children are living here. I know of one particular case of a man, a poor little Polish tailor in Hull, who went out to join the Russian Army. He is now trying to get back to his wife at Hull but has been refused permission to land. I have had letters from the Lord Mayor of Hull and other leading citizens testifying to the bonâ fide and good character of this man, declaring that he is quite harmless and a good citizen in every way. His wife and child are there. He is not given permission to land, and I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether it is the fact that Russians who volunteered to go from this country to fight in the Russian Army are now being refused permission to return If it be the case, then I say it is a blot on our escutcheon. We ought to have an answer to that question.
At the present time the wives and children of these men are in this country; they are wanting to get the breadwinners back. If they are refused permission I want to know if that is acting in accordance with the letter of the agreement we made with Russia, and if it is to the honour of this country. Should we have any complaint to make if reprisals are taken against Englishmen who came from Russia to fight in this War, and who may want to go back there when a stable government has been set up? This Amendment is a very useful one. It will not hinder the keeping out of undesirables or of criminals, but it will do justice to the strangers within our gates or rather who should be within our gates and who are being kept out on very slender evidence. There is a certain amount of feeling in this country which is responsible for much of this class of legislation, and these unfortunate men require this safeguard.

Mr. KILEY: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not consent to withdraw his proposal unless he obtains an assurance that there will be some Court of Appeal to which persons whose entrance is challenged may go. The system which he desires to re-establish has been in vogue and worked very successfully during the last ten years. During the period of the War it was not necessary to call these Committees together, because the Home Office dealt with all such cases. But there is now no reason why the Committees should not consider them. Still, if the Home Secretary will give an assurance that instead of re-establishing these boards he will refer all such cases to the Special Committees which have for many months been dealing with cases for deportation, he will go some way to meet this case. These provisions which the Government are proposing to continue may be good enough during a time of war, but when a state of war no longer exists, I submit the principle underlying them is one which should be opposed by every section of this House. There is, in fact, no justification for them. At the present time in my Constituency there are a number of wives and families of Russians. These men went back for military service to the country of their origin. They are now anxious to return to support their families, but they are forbidden to land by order of the Home Office. Their wives and children have up to now been kept by the State, but the State has come to the
conclusion to no longer support them. Therefore they must now become a charge on the Poor Law in the districts in which they reside. It is only natural that the Poor Law authorities of the districts object to this responsibility and say, "Let the men come back and support their wives and families." These men are perfectly willing and anxious to do that, and are only prevented by the action of the Home Office. It may be that some of these men are not fit to be allowed back. Let their cases be considered. If the Home Secretary will set up a tribunal like the tribunals already in existence or some other tribunal I am quite prepared to accept one or the other, but that there should be some appeal is beyond all question.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: I understood that the Under-Secretary said that some Court of Appeal would be established or some authority would be set up to which the aliens might appeal.

Major BAIRD: I do not think I went as far as saying that they would be established. I said that experience might show that it was necessary.

Mr. WILSON: It is necessary that the Government should give a promise that either now or in another place they will put in words providing that the people who are affected by the Bill should have the right of appeal to some Court. That would ease the situation, and certainly no injustice would be done to anyone by putting in such a provision.

Mr. SHORTT: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the permanent provisions of the Bill should be subject to an appeal? I cannot give a pledge with regard to the temporary provisions, because that would be presuming to bind Parliament a year or eighteen months hence or whatever it might be. To move in another place something dealing with the permanent provisions of the Bill would be another matter. It is very difficult for me to give any sort of pledge as to what will be done in the future with regard to the temporary provisions of this particular Bill, but so far as the permanent provisions are concerned that is another matter.

Mr. WILSON: May I make clear what is in my mind? The Amendment says:
Where leave to land in this Kingdom is withheld from an alien by the immigration officer.
There are several immigration officers. I understand there is one at every port. Is that so?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.

Mr. WILSON: Then one immigration officer might allow an alien to come in while another might refuse permission under exactly similar conditions? It is fair, not only to the person affected but also to the immigration officer, that there should be a standard of admission to the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment, he ought to put some provision in the Bill whereby what might be an injustice or an anomaly might be prevented; for instance, an immigration officer might refuse to admit John Brown at Hull and another immigration officer at. Southampton might admit him. In a case of that sort there should be a right of appeal.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand that this Amendment refers merely to one year after the passing of this Bill. It is during that time that we want to have some form of Appeal Court so that people who are arbitrarily prevented from landing on these shores or who are deported on arriving at these shores should have some Court to which to appeal. Only the other day M. Longuet arrived from Paris, I believe for the Trade Union Congress at Blackpool. He was arbitrarily deported, and had no appeal. That is the sort of thing which happens at present. The case is far worse than that, because if you do not accept this Amendment it means that the right of any alien to come back to these shores depends upon Sir Basil Thomson's secret police. It is a question of purely executive action by a newly-formed body, a new importation from Russia. We are leaving it to these people to decide whether or not an alien shall land. In these circumstances we ought not to allow even one year to go by without some sort of Court of Appeal, particularly as my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has shown that this provision affects primarily those people who went to fight in the Russian Army and are now finding difficulties in getting back to this country. Certainly I have had correspondence with the Home Office on this subject, and I gather that they are giving permission to land. I had letters from the Under-Secretary
stating that they were giving permission to every Russian who fought in the Russian Army to return.

Mr. KILEY: That is not so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If that is not so, we ought to have a clear statement on the matter at once. If the matter is in doubt it makes it all the more essential that we should have some Court of Appeal to which these people returning to their own work and to their wives and families, should be able to appeal. Some are married to English women. There was the case of one man about whom I wrote to the-Home Office, who were good enough to say he could return. There is a number of cases of these people anxious to return, but their return depends now upon the report of a secret police. In these circumstances it would be a monstrous crime if we allowed one year to go by without some sort of Court of Appeal instead of a mere appeal to the Executive. I hope the Mover of the Amendment will at least press it to a Division, to show that there are some people who still prefer justice to the alarming varieties of anti-Semitism which have been displayed in this House to-night.

Mr. SHORTT: I have rarely listened in the course of one speech to so many misstatements. So far as the Russians are concerned, the sort of Russians who are taken up by hon. Members opposite are the men who deliberately preferred to go back to their own country rather than to fight for this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They went into the Army.

Mr. SHORTT: There is not the slightest evidence that any one of them ever went into the Army.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Englishmen had that right too.

Mr. SHORTT: These men deliberately left this country. They came back here and pretend that they have fought. Whenever we have had a chance of testing their statement it has been untrue. It is, suggested that they are hardly treated, innocent persons. They are nothing of the sort. They chose their own beds; they chose to leave this country of their own accord. They would not fight for this country. Any Russian, any alien who has fought for this country—I am signing dozens a day of such orders—is entitled to become naturalised and to become a
citizen of this country. We gave that pledge and we are carrying it out. But a man who deliberately says, "I will not fight for you, I am going back to Russia," well let him stop there.
To turn to the really responsible question of the hon. Gentleman, there is a considerable difficulty about arranging any appeal. For the purpose of getting uniformity there is at present always an appeal to the Secretary of State. He gives his instructions and he endeavours as far as possible to see that there is uniformity. The Courts of Appeal which have been set up have not been a success at all. They have been actuated purely by local considerations. There has been far less uniformity amongst them to that extent than there is now with the immigration officer acting under strict regulations from the Home Office. I quite agree that eventually we ought, if possible, to have some form of appeal. I cannot pledge myself to any form of appeal to-night. I cannot pledge myself that by the time this Bill gets to another place we shall be in a position—I do not want to give a pledge that I cannot carry out—to bring in a measure of appeal which would be suitable, satisfactory and reasonably efficient. It is not an easy matter. The question of landing is not so difficult. If a man comes and he has to show that he conies within certain regulations and he cannot do it, he must go back until he can do it. Deportation is a much more difficult matter. The principle that we have gone upon in the Home Office has been this: Whenever the ground of deportation was the accusation of a crime which could be tested in the Courts, we have made no order until the man had been charged and tried. Where someone reports that so-and-so has been guilty of an offence you can have the man charged, and if the Court acquits him or refuses to make an order for deportation on the expiry of his sentence, no deportation order would be made. The really difficult cases are where you have very strong evidence that a man is really a danger to the country and has yet been too adroit to bring himself within the law, and it is very difficult—I hope the House will not minimise the difficulty—to establish a really satisfactory Court of Appeal for them. It might be necessary to have private sittings. Ail kinds of things are essential. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) suggests that the whole thing is at present conducted by a new Secret Service, which
does not exist. There is nothing new about it. He knows nothing about Sir Basil Thomson or his secret service, but he can tell the House all about it. Those are the difficult cases. I am so far agreed that I think some method should be found by which a man who has been once admitted to this country should have had some form of appeal before he is deported from it. I put him upon a much higher plane than the man who is not in a position to satisfy the conditions of his landing. That is his own fault.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Is he allowed to state his case to the Home Secretary before he is deported?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course lie is, and any man who is ever asked to state his case has had his case put for him and any man who wants to approach me can do so at any moment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: A man who is landing here?

10.0 P.M

Mr. SHORTT: No. The question referred to deportation, which is a totally different thing. If a man who comes here unprepared to bring himself within the regulations it is his own fault and he must go back and try again if he likes. Deportation involves that a man has at some time been admitted here as an alien proper to be admitted. Therefore I quite see that where a man is going to have something taken away from him which has been given to him there ought to be some method of having his case tried and tested. I cannot pretend to have thought out a scheme. It is very difficult. For the moment I cannot say I know any scheme which is successful. You cannot keep in being Mr. Justice Younger's Tribunal, which has done such admirable work, for ever, and it will be impossible for them to do the work. Whatever the tribunal is it will have to be a permanent tribunal doing its work in a permanent and uniform way, and it will involve an establishment, expenditure and salaries. In answer to a question which was not reached this afternoon I was prepared to say that the extension of the Departments of the Home Office is entirely due to the extension of that portion of it which deals with aliens. There has been practically no extension in other directions. It has all been with regard to extending the personnel dealing with aliens, and if you have an appeal it involves all that. I cannot
give any pledge with regard to temporary provisions. The object of making them temporary was that Parliament in its wisdom should deal with them in the light of greater experience at a future time. It would be presumption for any Minister to attempt in these circumstances to give a pledge as to what would be done. With regard to those measures which are permanent I think there ought to be some sort of appeal. If anyone can put before me what I have not been able to think of for myself, a really satisfactory Court of Appeal, I am prepared to consider it and endeavour to have it introduced in another place, but I cannot give a definite promise that I will myself think of something and have it ready in time. I could not do it, but I agree that some form of appeal is really necessary and ought to be found if possible. I cannot go further than that.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of Powers.)

(1) Sub-section (1) of Section one of the principal Act shall be amended by the addition at the end thereof of the following paragraphs:
(1) for determining what nationality is to be ascribed to aliens in doubtful circumstances, and for disregarding, in the case of any person against whom a deportation or expulsion Order has been made, any subsequent change of nationality; and
(m) for prolonging, for a period not exceeding six months after the termination of any war in which His Majesty is engaged, the internment of any persons who during the war have been interned as alien enemies.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (m).
I move this Amendment not with the object of making any change in the Bill so much as to attempt to find out from the Home Office how many of these aliens are still interned. The War has been over now for nine months, and during most of these months we have been maintaining a large number of enemy aliens at these camps, and they have been a charge upon the country, and not only themselves, but their wives and families. I want to know how many are still in these camps, or whether they have all been deported back to their own countries of origin or set at liberty in this country. I would like to know the precise object of this paragraph in the Bill. Peace has not yet been ratified, so that there is no need to release any who are interned. There is no sign of a final
peace with Turkey being ratified for some time yet. Why should the Home Office take powers after the ratification of Peace to keep these people interned for a further six months? It is a question of very real hardship, particularly to the British-born wives of many of these interned aliens. Many are the pitiable cases that have come before me of these unfortunate women unable to make both ends meet, while their husbands have been four or five years interned, and only being able to see them once a month, and all this time the poor women have been turned down by all their English friends and relations because of their foreign name. That has been going on year after year, and I think that nine months after the termination of hostilities we might know that the last of these people have been released or sent back to their country. I would like to know whether they have all been dealt with by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee.

Mr. SHORTT: Apparently this Amendment is not moved seriously. It takes the place of an ordinary question set down in the ordinary way. I am not surprised that it is not put seriously, because the words in the paragraph refer to "any war." It is a permanent provision and not a temporary provision. It is a permanent Amendment of the old Act, applying to any wars. If the lion and gallant Member will put down a question, I will get the facts and figures. I cannot carry them in my head. So far as I am aware, I think Mr. Justice Younger has practically finished his work. That is my information. He hoped to have finished it to-day, but whether he has done so or not I cannot say.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that they are all released when he has finished his work?

Mr. SHORTT: Not necessarily. Those that are to be repatriated are released, but those that are not are not.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Incitement to Sedition, etc.)

(1) If any alien attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause sedition or disaffection amongst any of His Majesty's Forces or the forces of His Majesty's Allies, or amongst the civilian population, he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to penal servitude for a term not exceeding ten years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

(2) If any alien promotes or attempts to promote industrial unrest in any industry in which he is not bonâ fide engaged in the United King-
dom, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "or amongst the civil population."
At the present time this Clause may be read so as to make it impossible for any person of well-known Socialistic politics in any of the countries of Europe or America to remain on these shores without grave danger to himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Evidently, in the opinion of some hon. Members, we are to reverse the policy of Britain which has carried us on for three hundred years. After the Revolution of 1848 M. Blanc, who was a refugee from France, and who was connected with the '48 Revolution, sat in Hyde Park one day, so the story goes, and saw the fine equipages driving up and down the Row, and next to him was a down-and-out tramp, eating chipped potatoes. M. Blanc said to him, "Look at ze equipages, and ze fine horses, and ze fat coachman driving ze fat women!Does it not make your blood boil?" The tramp turned round and said, "You're a foreigner, ain't you? You don't see horses like them in Paris." What would happen to M. Blanc if he were to come to England to-day and to make such comments to a down-and-out tramp in Hyde Park? If those remarks were overheard by a policeman he might be run in for attempting "to cause sedition or disaffection amongst the civilian population." It is obvious that any foreigner might say something which was calculated to show that he had a certain contempt for the present Coalition Government. I have heard such things said by foreigners within the last six months. Of course, we all stick up for our Government in these circumstances; but if that sort of thing goes on, and in the National Liberal Club it was overheard, it might mean six months' imprisonment. If you had a Socialist Conference over here, attended by all the Internationals, every man who came to that conference would render himself liable over and over again to be run in on this charge. Let us remember that England in the past was the one country which maintained the right of asylum and the right of free speech, and here you are in a moment of panic passing an Act which makes every speech by a Socialist foreigner impossible or dangerous in this country. In doing that you are
travelling rapidly in the wrong direction. I hope this Amendment will be accepted, at any rate by a considerable number of Members. It is hardly possible that the, Home Office will go so far as to accept it under their present leadership.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. I do not think that it is quite seriously meant. I can quite understand the peculiar nature of the hop and gallant Gentleman's speech, but no proposal of this character was ever taken in the way lie says. I am quite sure that no foreigner, whether Socialist or Conservative or whatever he may be, is likely to stir up disaffection in this country in the way that has been mentioned. The ordinary preaching of political doctrine is not the spreading of sedition. Nobody knows that better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This provision aims at people who come over here to make mischief from their own selfish political purposes in their own country. We do not want that. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, having indulged in his gibes at the Government will let us have his prognostications of what is going to happen to decent respectable people who talk politics—which he knows are all wrong—will not press this Amendment.

Mr. J. JONES: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really means what he says? What is an alien? If we are going to conduct propaganda what is going to be said against the number of men in this country who are associated with the trade union movement and who cannot prove that they are Englishmen? Some of you would have difficulty in proving your nationality. During the railway strike all sorts of people volunteered. Why did they not keep on volunteering and take advantage of the opportunity of earning an honest living for the rest of their lives But they have not done so, which proves to me that they are parasites. They have got time on their hands, but they will not do anything else but pretend to work for everybody else who is out of work. But in this case what is an alien? I happen to be an alien. I am an Irishman. I remember the time when "no Irish need apply" was posted outside the factory gates, and consequently, according to the new philosophy laid down in this
Act, a man who is suspicious from the standpoint of those who consider themselves in authority is not allowed to work. I am a trade unionist, but as a trade unionist I believe that no non-unionist ought to be allowed to exist, and the people who tell me this are doctors and lawyers. They are not trade unionists, but they are the best trade unionists I ever knew. I want to know what is meant by the Clause you are now putting into the Bill? Does it mean that no workman because of his nationality is allowed to land in this country and is not allowed to take part in any propaganda in this country? There is a number of men who are Germans by descent. Are they going to be debarred from taking part in trade union propaganda? If so I shall object to Princess Mary coming down to open bazaars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"] I shall say no more, but if the descent of people is going to be taken into consideration before they are to take part in public work, then you shall go to the highest in the land and demand the inspection of a certificate for the purpose of proving that they are British. I object to this Clause, and I ask all our Friends in this House to protest against it.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
I moved a similar resolution in Committee. The omission of the Sub-section would be in the best interests of the Bill. The Sub-section states that
If any alien promotes or attempts to pro--mote industrial unrest in any industry in which he is not bonâ fide engaged in the United Kingdom, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
That means that a Pole who is a member of the Miners' Federation can say what he likes in connection with the mining industry, but if he says the same from the platform of a meeting of railway servants or of any other industry he is liable to prosecution under this Act. It means that -or it means nothing. The same thing would apply to a Swiss painter or an Italian barber who is a member of a British trade union. He could say what he liked at a meeting of his own members, but if he said the same thing at a meeting of, say, the engineers, he is liable to prosecution. A man may say what he likes In his own union, but he cannot say it in
Hyde Park, or on Parliament Hill, or in Stevenson Square, Manchester. That is an anomaly. I appeal to the Home Secretary to give the matter sympathetic consideration. The omission of the Clause would be in the best interests of the State and the community, and it would tend to allay industrial unrest.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In America to-day you have Labour representatives from practically all the Allies attempting to frame a Labour charter. If a Clause like this became law, what would Samuel Gompers think of the British House of Commons? We will assume, for the moment, that there is an agitation in progress for the nationalisation of mines. Our leaders here would be going about the country educating the miners. Gompers might come here and deliver practically the same speech as our miners' leaders, though in slightly different language. Under this Clause here he is liable to be sent to prison for three months. That may happen if he uses different language or if he uses the same language; and the Home Office can interpret anything to suit their own convenience. You may have the same thing happen in the case of a Frenchman or in other instances. I am certain from the experience of trade union leaders that language is very often used where people do not think of the meaning of what they say and they make mistakes. You may have a Jew tailor in the East End who perhaps uses some language he does not understand. We know that very often they use words they do not understand, and simply because they do so you are going to send them to prison for three months. Mr. Asquith pointed out to Lord French when you make a mistake it is a misfortune, but under this Clause it is made a crime. I hope the Home Secretary will have the Clause deleted in the interests not only of the trade union movement here but also among the Allies and all the peoples of the world.

Mr. SHORTT: This Sub-clause is really a most important Sub-clause, and is essential to the Bill, and the attack upon it, judging from the speeches to which we have just listened, is based upon a most inaccurate reading of the Sub-clause and a whole misunderstanding of it. This Clause provides especially that an alien who is charged with stirring
up industrial unrest can only be so charged if he is doing it in an industry in which he is not bonâ fide engaged, so that in the case mentioned of the Jew tailor Who is filled with industrial disturbance and makes a speech, not in his own language, and in which he may mis-express himself, he would not be touched by this proposal. My hon. Friend made the most astonishing statement that the Home Office could twist things as they liked, and he apparently included the judges and magistrates who try the case, because after all the emissaries of the Home Office can only prosecute and make the charge. It is the judge who convicts and not the Home Office. Therefore, if there is any possible defence to the action the judge acquits the man. You may get in this country a Pole or an American or anybody else who has come to reside in this country and who is part of the industrial life of the country and who has become a person of repute in the trade union movement, and he may be called on to take part in a dispute in a trade not his own because -of his position in the trade union movement. That may very well be so. But why does he not get naturalized. Why if he wants to take such a leading part in English industry, does he not get naturalised?

Mr. T. WILSON: Why should he be prosecuted because he is not naturalised if he would not be prosecuted for making the same speech if he were naturalised?

Mr. SHORTT: For this reason. You must consider what is the mischief aimed at. We know perfectly well that there are aliens, more especially coming from the enemy alien countries, whose object would be to come here and stir up industrial unrest for their own home purposes. If we allowed any aliens that chose to come here and take part in stirring up unrest and strikes in which they had no real concern, it would be a most valuable thing for our trade competitors and for those who want us to have nothing but disturbances and unrest in this country, and it would be an invaluable instrument in the hands of our enemies. That is the mischief aimed at, and when you are aiming at a mischief by an Act of Parliament you are bound to hit some people, or you may hit some people who are innocent, but in this case you need not hit a single innocent person. The remedy is in their own hands; they can become naturalised, and they do not
come under this Clause. If they do not become naturalised, they must stick to the industry in which they are ordinarily engaged. The mischief is a real mischief; it is one that must be dealt with, and we have attempted to deal with it and to put in safeguards for those aliens who arc bonâ fide parts of the industrial life of this country and are merely taking their ordinary place as trade unionists in their own trade union, but if there is any alien who is of such repute, as I have said before, in trade union circles that they want to use him for general trade union purposes, let him become naturalised, and then he will not come under this provision at all.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Home Secretary has stated that this Sub-section hits at some position which is present to the public mind at the moment. What we have to do, and I say it with all respect to him and to the House, when we are passing legislation is not merely to consider the passing moment or the immediate problem, but the fact that this goes on the Statute Book and will necessarily cover many other circumstances which are not present at the moment in the mind of the Home Secretary or of anybody else. It is just as well that we should know, so far as we can, what this must really be held to cover. What are the words that the House has already passed to cover the case of the alien being in this country and doing acts or taking part in operations which are calculated to be of damage to the peace of his Sovereign Majesty the King? Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 says already:
If any alien attempts or does any act calculated or likely to cause sedition or disaffection amongst any of His Majesty's Forces or the forces of His Majesty's Allies, or amongst the civilian population, he shall be liable, etc.
The House has already consented to that. Take Sub-section (2) and see what that means. If words mean anything, so far as I know anything of the construing of plain words—and these are plain words—they mean this: There is industrial unrest in this country at the present moment. It might be at any time, as we know, accentuated by a strike. There may be—there certainly will be—international conferences of Labour delegates from friendly countries sitting in London or in other parts of the United Kingdom, and quite naturally the question of the immediate unrest, which is exciting the populace at the moment and taking up a large portion
of the public industrial mind, will be present to such a conference as that. You may have there Mr. Samuel Gompers; you may have one of the leaders of the French Labour Conference, or the Belgian Labour Conference, or the Italian Labour Conference, or any of our Allies and our friends. If these words mean anything at all, they mean that if the words of any one of those gentlemen, representative of the friendly countries, and, indeed, of a friendly international development of the well-being of cosmopolitan labour, in the opinion of the magistrate sitting in a particular town, promote or attempt to promote industrial unrest in any industry in which that gentleman is not bonâ fide engaged—does the Home Secretary really mean that he wishes to protect the country against that kind of thing?

Mr. SHORTT: In time of strike?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Industrial unrest does not necessorily mean a strike. It might mean threatening a strike or all sorts of things. Does anybody say there is not industrial unrest rampant in the country to-day? I want to urge on the House to be more careful of the kind of legislation it is passing, and to be sure that when we are passing these words we are not handing on an instrument which might only be used for purposes which are not present to the minds of His Majesty's Ministers at the present time, but might lead to very serious international complications. I do not think the arguments of my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment are to be dismissed so lightly as the Home Secretary thinks. He will believe me, I am sure, when I say that I take no mere narrow view of this. I am looking far beyond the conditions which the Home Secretary and the Government apparently have got in mind, and I beg them very seriously to consider whether they really mean to press this Sub-section in view of the arguments, which I think were of very considerable weight, advanced by hon. Members, without some further consideration. If they do, I shall most certainly vote for the deletion of the Sub-section

Mr. SHORTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that, supposing there is a dispute in an industry in this country between masters and men for example, Mr. Samuel Gompers would either dream of coming and interfering,
or ought to be allowed to come and interfere? And what would happen in America if there were a dispute there, and either of my hon. Friends went there and tried to interfere?

Sir D. MACLEAN: With the permission of the House I will reply to the point put to me by the Home Secretary. These words are very wide words. Just let me read them:
Promote or attempts to promote.
There are a large number of hon. Members of this House proceeding to Washington to engage in an International Conference, and they will be sitting here again. The danger is that you will put into the hand of the executive of the day a power which the country never intended to give the executive over a friendly visitor—never! I say the point which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me in no way affects my position.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Home Secretary made great play with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontypool that the Home Office officials might twist cases in a sense adverse to justice and to the right of those concerned. I do not really think that the hon. Member for Pontypool has overstated the case, because the immediate result of this suggestion has already been seen in the East End of London. I understand that there are numerous officials of Jewish trade unions in the East End, most of which unions are affiliated with the local trade and labour councils, and these officials are already resigning their posts as secretaries, and from the trade and labour councils because they are afraid that, by being on the trade and labour council, they may involve themselves in a charge of promoting or attempting to promote industrial unrest. Of course the trade and labour councils are connected with any trade dispute, and if aliens either sit on the board, or are connected with the trade union represented there, they may be brought within the purview of this Act. I do not for a moment say that the Home Office will do as is suggested, but that it might do it is the fear that is causing these people to resign their positions. This point has not hitherto been considered at all. Any alien will, so far as I can see, have to clear out of any union associated with the trade and labour council. This is even more apparent in the case of an alien miner, for he is
thereby debarred supporting either of the three members of Triple Alliance. Any action he may take to support the miners in a strike or a threatened strike would, or might, apply quite well to the other two—the railway workers and the transport workers. There it would be inciting industrial unrest amongst the other unions. In view of the enormous amalgamation of unions at the present time, it is very difficult to say whether the man is inciting industrial unrest in his own or in a trade with which he is not concerned. The amalgamation of the unions, or the union of trade and labour councils, would appear certainly to bring the man within the scope of this Act, or at least to suggest such a danger that those of whom I have spoken believe they are wise in clearing out of any responsible position in the union, or any work connected with industrial organisation at all. A Clause like this would appear to make it all the more desirable that there should be some sort of stipulation in the Bill that an alien does not include a citizen of the United States. It would be really lamentable that by passing legislation like this—which, I think, is panic legislation—that we should make international relations between ourselves and America worse than at present. Would it not be possible even now when the Government are recommitting this Bill in view of Clauses like this to recommit it also with the instruction to expressly exclude Americans from the status of aliens within the meaning of the Act? Think what it will mean? There are all sorts of extremely advanced Labour men in the States. S. Gompers I look upon as somewhat Conservative. [An HON. MEMBER: "Trotsky!"] Let the House realise that a speech from Trotsky is likely to do the party for which lie speaks much good in this country !
There are all sorts of people like that in America who if they come over here might make speeches in connection with some strike, and they would only be too likely to jump up if they were likely to be imprisoned here in order to get kudos out of it. We shall have trouble of that sort. What happens if we go over to America? If I went over to America I might be tempted to have an interview or say something about the strike in the steel works at Carnegie's works—

Mr. STANTON: Why should you speak there at all? You say you are British.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have been in America more than you have.

Mr. STANTON: I have not been there at all.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Go and have dinner again.

Mr. STANTON: I have not had dinner. Sonic of us cannot afford dinner as well as you can. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that remark.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member appeals on a point of Order, he should set a good example by keeping order himself.

Mr. STANTON: I did not start the business. It was the hon. and gallant Gentleman who made the statement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The point I was trying to make is that if we pass this legislation it applies to America, and I think we should be very likely to have reciprocal legislation over there which would apply to English people. You might have serious international incidents over a measure such as this. We have had trouble before from statements made by British Ambassadors in America. Once you imprison people who like it for the advertisement, they will take advantage of this legislation, and I hope it may be possible in the first instance to make it quite clear that trade and labour councils are exempt, and that membership of those councils does not bring an alien within the ambit of this Bill. Secondly, so far as American citizens are concerned they should not be considered as aliens under this measure, and the cementing of English and French relations might very well begin by an Aliens Bill exempting them from its provisions.

Mr. MACMASTER: This proposal is undoubtedly broad in its scope, and I am not at all moved by the suggestion which has been made. There are three circumstances in which a prosecution might take place. I do not think it will be doubted that if an alien came into this country and attempted to promote unrest in an industry in which he was not bonâ fide engaged he would be liable under this Clause to prosecution. I do not object to it, but I say that it is one of the results of the Clause. Therefore, you have to
contemplate that the Clause will so apply, and also have to contemplate the effect of it so applying.
The next is this, suppose an alien in this country promotes or attempts to promote an industrial dispute in any occupation in which he is not bonâ fide engaged, he is liable to prosecution, and probably deservedly so. Then, as was pointed out, au alien in this country may promote any amount of industrial dispute in any industry in which he himself is engaged without being liable to prosecution. You therefore have these three different categories, in two of which the man is liable to prosecution and in one of which he is not. There does certainly seem to be some inconsistency in saying that a man may make any amount of trouble in the particular industry in which he is bonâ fide engaged as an alien but that if lie steps across the road to discuss a matter of a similar character in another industry in which he is not bonâ fide occupied he is to be liable to prosecution.

Mr. STANTON: I have listened quite the biggest part of the evening to several speeches by my hon. Friends, who soon shouted out when I raised my voice. I have listened to all sorts of things, and I think I have the right to say, having been a Labour man all my life, and having in no instance betrayed my fellow-workers, that I protest in the most vigorous way against statements made in this House in the sacred name of Labour, real Labour. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) talks very knowingly about the trades and labour councils. I wonder how much he really knows of that movement! The trades and labour councils originally were a very healthy, progressive movement, but I declare here that now they are used as an instrument for the very sort of person with whom this Clause is supposed to deal. We have had many foreigners at Merthyr Tydvil. Some German came down there, and he was welcomed with open arms. Somebody was holding out great hopes for the future and preaching national brotherhood. At the same time this German was spying. We discovered that the man who was addressed as Brother So-and-so, and who was addressing the Trades and Labour Council, was really a German spy. The evidence of that has been submitted for the local police to consider. I know
much better than the hon. Member for Lincolnshire—you know who I mean—what it really means. I am as friendly disposed as ever to all that is progressive and honest in the trades and labour councils, but I do say that the Clause is one worthy of consideration. We know very well that voices are raised on that side of the House really to re-echo, so that somebody in the Gallery representing the Bolshevist section may report to their meeting. They dare not speak the truth. You arc enslaved by the Bolsheviks in this country. Ramsay Macdonald, Snowden, and the others who have been turned out of this House are now holding their fingers up and you dare not kick. Sonic of you do not get up to speak. Do you know why? Your conscience dictates such conduct to you. Others feel that they had better speak or it may mean damnation to them at the next Trade Union Congress or sonic other meeting. Therefore I say you should not pay attention to that side of the question. It is only re-echoing the voice of the Bolshevik movement outside that has dominated the movement for direct action, and while pretending really that they are out to help labour and bring about better conditions they are playing into the hands of the enemies of this country and betraying its best interests. You may jeer and sneer, but I have been straight in my work in the Labour movement. In my time I was a rebel but I was never a Bolshevik, and I repeat you are betraying your consciences in order to keep your jobs.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I have been thinking while my hon. Friend (Mr. Stanton) was speaking of a little trip we took together nearly twenty years ago into Germany.

Mr. STANTON: The International Miners' Conference.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Yes; and we saw there in operation the kind of legislation that is proposed in this Clause. One of the delegates had addressed that congress. He was not a German, he was an alien. The hon. Member for Aberdare and myself were both aliens. We dared not in that country have expressed ourselves in language which we would have used in this country. One of the delegates had addressed that congress, and when we got back in the afternoon after luncheon we were told that his speech was not to be interpreted and that the person who had delivered it
had been conducted across the [...] I asked our interpreter what he h[...] been saying, and he said it was a most innocent inoffensive sort of speech but it was a speech which had been barred by legislation of the kind proposed to-night. I am sure my hon Friend opposite would not support legislation if he believed that at a Miners' International Congress in this country a Belgian or a Frenchman might not only be conducted across the frontier but even imprisoned for three months for making a speech which he or I might be entitled to make, and which it would be perfectly legal for me to make. Yet that is the position in which as I understand this Clause an International Miners' Congress would be placed in this country—if that is the correct interpretation of it—of course if the Home Secretary or any other lawyers on that bench say it is not—well, of course, they know better than I. But I think it is a very dangerous precedent to embody in legislation in this country,
and I hope that in response to the appeals which have been made the Clause will be deleted from the Bill.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.